Investigative Report: Are Some Humans Living as NPCs in a Simulation?

Introduction

Simulation theory—the idea that our reality might be an artificial simulation—has gained mainstream discussion in recent years. Within this framework emerges a provocative hypothesis: that a significant subset of people function as non-player characters (NPCs) in the simulation. In gaming terms, NPCs are background characters with scripted behaviors, lacking true agency. Applied to real life, an “NPC human” would be an individual who appears normal but operates on pre-programmed responses or limited consciousness. This report examines evidence and arguments supporting the NPC hypothesis. We investigate behavioral anomalies, cognitive science findings, simulation efficiency models, and reports from altered states of consciousness. The goal is to present a credible case that many humans may not be fully “sentient players” but rather part of the simulated environment. We then consider tactical implications of this possibility for those seeking to navigate or exploit a world potentially populated by NPC-like individuals.

Behavioral Evidence of Scripted or Mechanical Behavior

Observers of human behavior have long noted patterns that resemble NPC-like scripting. Everyday interactions are often highly predictable and sometimes oddly programmatic. For example, psychological research shows that nearly half of our waking life is spent on “autopilot.” A Harvard study using thousands of real-time data points found people’s minds were wandering (not focused on their actions or surroundings) about 46.9% of the time. In essence, almost half our lives we operate in a non-present, default mode—behaving out of habit rather than conscious choice. Such mind-wandering suggests many day-to-day actions are carried out with minimal active awareness, akin to an NPC running on background code.

More striking are instances of non-responsive social behavior. Front-line anecdotal evidence illustrates how some individuals respond robotically to stimuli. In one informal experiment, a security officer noticed that about 40% of people arriving at a gate would repeat the same stock phrases (“stay warm” on a cold day, “stay safe,” etc.). To test their awareness, he replied with complete nonsense statements (e.g. “Have a good turkey leg”) instead of the expected pleasantry. The result: person after person still responded with generic niceties (“You too… thanks”) as if nothing odd was said​. In fact, out of 122 people in a row, only 2 or 3 even registered the atypical reply​. The vast majority continued as if following a social script, utterly oblivious to the content of the exchange. Such behavior aligns with the NPC concept—individuals seemingly running a script (polite greeting protocol) without genuine situational awareness.

Beyond small talk, larger group dynamics can also appear pre-programmed. People often move in crowds or trends in ways that defy individual spontaneity. Retail workers joke about the “bus syndrome” where customers arrive in waves at random intervals, as if an unseen scheduler sends them in clusters. Social psychologists might explain this through herd behavior, but from an NPC perspective it’s as if background characters are activated or deactivated en masse by the simulation. Likewise, in public discourse and media, one often hears identical phrases and reactions echoed by large numbers of people. Political slogans, buzzwords, even jokes are repeated verbatim by thousands as if instilled by a common script. Those supporting opposing sides in an argument frequently recycle the same talking points and catchphrases, almost like NPC dialogue trees. As one commentator quipped, “nothing original comes out” of certain people’s mouths—they exhibit hive-mind repetition with “no mind of their own” for the most part​.

Proponents of the NPC hypothesis point to extreme conformity as a sign that many individuals lack a unique internal driver. For instance, if only a small fraction of the population generates new ideas or art, the rest simply consume and mimic. One theorist speculates that perhaps 90% of society falls into the latter category of routine-followers. These people, he argues, are content with whatever is popular (the cultural equivalent of fast food), are incapable of true originality, and merely amplify trends started by the creative few​. In this view, the world’s innovators, creators, and independent thinkers might be the only “players” with genuine agency—while the majority are NPCs who adopt whatever scripts or fads the system feeds them. While 90% is an intuitive guess, the prevalence of bandwagon behavior and copycat trends lends some weight to the notion that a large segment of humans operate more like followers running default programs than self-directed individuals.

Cognitive and Neurological Clues

If some humans are NPC-like, one might expect differences not just in outward behavior but in inner life. Intriguingly, recent cognitive science research has revealed that inner experiences once assumed to be universal are absent in a subset of people. This raises the question of whether these individuals have a diminished inner consciousness, as one might expect of a simulated character.

Consider the phenomenon of inner speech (the internal monologue). Most people habitually “talk to themselves” in their mind throughout the day, an activity linked to self-awareness and complex thought. However, a 2024 study found that between 5% and 10% of people report zero inner voice; they do not experience internal verbal dialogue at all​. For these individuals, thoughts might occur only as abstract concepts or images, without the narrative commentary the rest of us know. It was long assumed an internal monologue was a universal human trait—now we know a notable minority lack it​. This startling discovery of “anendophasia” (absence of inner speech) prompts the question: Are these people fully conscious in the way we normally define it, or are they fundamentally different in their subjective awareness? An NPC hypothesis interpretation might suggest that some humans are effectively running without the “debug console” of conscious inner narration—living more like reactive automatons.

A related finding involves mental imagery. The mind’s ability to visualize—that “mind’s eye” in which we can see pictures or scenes internally—is another facet of inner experience. Yet a condition known as aphantasia reveals that roughly 1–3% of people cannot form mental images at all, and perhaps up to 5% have severely limited imagery​. To them, the phrase “imagine this scenario” is nearly meaningless; their imagination produces no pictures. People with aphantasia often only realized their difference when they learned others literally picture things in their head. They live without a visualization capacity that most consider integral to memory and creativity. Notably, such individuals often compensate by relying on factual or verbal thinking, and may appear outwardly normal. But their inner world is missing a dimension many of us take for granted. Again, one could ask: if a simulation wanted to conserve resources, might it not render rich inner imagery for every single character? The existence of aphantasia could be seen as evidence that some minds in our reality operate with “low graphics settings,” so to speak.

Apart from specific faculties like inner speech or imagery, there is the general issue of self-awareness. Studies indicate that people differ greatly in how much they introspect or engage in self-reflection. Many go through life with minimal examination of their own thoughts and motivations, essentially “running the program” society handed them. This echoes psychological concepts like the default mode network of the brain, which activates when we are not focused on the outside world. As mentioned, the default state tends to involve mind-wandering—often without realizing it, people drift through memories or fantasies while performing tasks on autopilot​. If consciousness was binary (either fully present or off), we might say humans flicker in and out of conscious attention every moment. In NPC terms, perhaps only a portion of people’s mental processes are truly “online,” with the rest handled by background subroutines.

It is important to note that lacking an inner monologue or vivid imagery does not equate to lacking consciousness or intelligence—many people with these traits lead normal, functioning lives. However, these findings do show that the human population is not homogeneous in inner experience. There are qualitative differences in how minds operate. This lends a sliver of plausibility to the idea that some segment of humanity could have a thinner layer of consciousness. They might get through life via learned scripts, habit, and external prompts, with relatively little independent, reflective cognition. Such a person, though biologically human, behaves much like an NPC: driven by programming (social conditioning, instincts) more than by any deep self-awareness. Cognitive variations like anendophasia and aphantasia highlight how some individuals might naturally function with a reduced “internal sandbox,” which in a simulated context could imply they were never allotted the same level of conscious processing as others.

Simulation Theory Perspectives: NPCs by Design

If indeed many humans act like NPCs, why would a simulation include these quasi-sentient characters? Simulation theorists offer several explanations grounded in efficiency and design. Just as video games populate their worlds with countless NPCs to create a convincing environment for the player, a simulated universe could do the same. It may not be necessary (or efficient) to give every human a fully conscious “player” mind. Instead, the simulation could imbue only a subset with true sentience, and fill the rest of the world with realistic automatons.

One argument comes from resource management. Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis posits that an advanced civilization running an ancestor-simulation would need enormous computing power. To optimize, the simulation might use tricks to avoid unnecessary calculations. Quantum physics provides an intriguing parallel: phenomena like the uncertainty principle suggest that certain events aren’t determined until observed. This has been likened to a computer rendering graphics on the fly—only generating detail when a player is looking. As an example, modern video games employ “conditional rendering” to lighten the load: only the environment around the player’s viewpoint is fully simulated, while off-screen areas exist in a simplified state. Rizwan Virk, an MIT researcher and simulation proponent, notes that games show only what you need to see (e.g. distant regions are low-resolution or filled in with fog) as a deliberate strategy to save computing resources. By analogy, our universe’s unexplained quantum behavior might be an artifact of a similar optimization: the world is rendered with fine detail (or definite states) only when observed by a conscious agent.

Extending this principle to people, one can imagine that not every human we encounter is running a full “consciousness program” at all times. Instead, many could be lightweight processes—NPCs—who are given just enough realism (behavior, appearance, basic intellect) to populate the world of the true players. When you’re not interacting with them, these NPCs might be largely inactive (“switched off” or running in a minimal state), and only when you engage do they animate with believable complexity. This concept was put forward by early simulation theorists in online forums: NPCs may effectively shut down when not needed, only to be retroactively said to have done whatever their script dictates they were doing offscreen. In other words, if no one is around to watch Bob-from-accounting go about his evening, the simulation doesn’t bother actually computing Bob’s detailed conscious experience. It can just update his state later (“Bob watched TV last night”) without having to simulate the minutiae. While speculative, this idea aligns with the rendering efficiency argument and could explain peculiar observations like people seeming to appear or disappear at convenient times, or entire towns that feel “empty” until a player arrives.

Apart from efficiency, another rationale for NPCs in a simulation is functional. NPCs could serve as social and environmental filler to enrich the experience of the real players. They would hold jobs, maintain institutions, and provide the complexity of a living society, allowing the conscious players to have a full range of interactions and challenges. An NPC workforce might perform the tedious or undesirable tasks to keep the simulation running smoothly​. Meanwhile, the player-characters (the truly sentient beings) can focus on more meaningful pursuits. This hierarchy resembles a video game where storyline characters drive the narrative while background characters simply make the world feel alive. Some in the NPC-theory community even speculate that NPCs exist to push players toward certain experiences—by following scripted patterns, NPCs collectively can nudge society in directions pre-set by the simulation’s designers. For example, NPCs might enforce “normalcy” by quickly embracing trends or beliefs, thereby pressuring any conscious individuals to conform or face social alienation​. In this way, they shape the game without needing personal awareness of what they’re doing.

It’s also worth noting that the NPC question has been taken seriously by credible thinkers entertaining simulation theory. In a 2019 interview, Rizwan Virk raised what he called “the most important question”: are we ourselves NPCs or players in this simulation?​ If we are merely NPCs, then our lives (and minds) are confined to the simulation’s parameters with no existence outside it. But if we are players, that implies we have some higher reality or consciousness beyond this world. Virk points out that NPCs in a game are typically there to “round out the experience” of the actual players. Translated to life, this suggests that if simulation theory is true, perhaps not everyone we encounter is a genuine protagonist. From a design standpoint, having a mix of real and NPC inhabitants could be the key to a believable yet computationally feasible simulated world. It’s a chilling possibility: billions of human beings might just be elaborate chat-bots in a sophisticated virtual Earth, unless you happen to be one of the real players yourself.

Skeptics rightly note that this line of thought borders on solipsism and could be a dangerous path (devaluing other human lives). However, the simulation framework provides a context in which the NPC hypothesis is technically plausible. The consistency of NPC-like behaviors and the existence of neurological outliers (lacking inner experiences) can be assembled into a theory that the simulation running our reality does not confer equal consciousness to all human avatars. In essence, it may be economizing “soul” or processing power, distributing it only to certain key players, while others run on more limited AI. This section has outlined why a simulated universe might be designed in such a way, making the NPC hypothesis more than just a meme—it becomes a potential feature of the simulation’s architecture.

Altered States and Metaphysical Observations

Clues about NPC-like entities also emerge from the fringes of human experience—lucid dreams, psychedelic trips, and esoteric spiritual teachings. These domains are rife with reports of encountering beings that appear human (or at least conscious) but might lack an independent consciousness. They offer a unique perspective, as if peering behind the curtain of reality’s stage production.

Lucid dreaming is one area that provides a telling analogy. In a lucid dream, the dreamer is aware they are dreaming and can observe the behavior of dream characters critically. Many lucid dreamers have reported that the characters in their dreams seem to have limited awareness or act as if controlled by an external script (the dreamer’s subconscious). When questioned, these dream figures often give evasive or absurd answers. Notably, some dream researchers have documented cases where a lucid dreamer directly confronts a dream character with the fact that they are “not real.” The responses can be fascinating: there are reports of dream figures vehemently insisting that they are real and have minds of their own. For instance, one account describes a lucid dreamer asking a dream character, “Do you realize you are just a character in my dream?” The character replied, “You are mistaken. I am just as real as you, although my body is immaterial.”​ Such exchanges are eerily reminiscent of sci-fi scenarios where NPCs deny their nature. In the controlled unreality of a dream, we can see how convincingly an unconscious construct can mimic sentience. The dream character believed (or was programmed to assert) that it was real. This calls to mind the possibility that if our waking life is a form of lucid dream (a simulation), some entities we interact with might be similarly hollow, despite their protests to the contrary.

Beyond dreams, those who venture into altered states via meditation or psychedelics sometimes report a diminished sense of reality to other people. Anecdotes abound of individuals who, in moments of extreme clarity or detachment, suddenly perceived strangers (or even friends) as empty shells—“human costumes” with nobody truly home inside. These subjective impressions are not scientific proof, but they intriguingly mirror the NPC notion. In shamanic or mystical traditions, there are concepts of “spiritless” humans. Some esoteric schools going back to antiquity taught that not all humans possess the same kind of soul or divine spark. The Gnostic and Hermetic teachings, for example, spoke of hylic or pre-Adamic humans who are essentially part of the material backdrop of the world, as opposed to the pneumatic or Adamic humans who have a higher consciousness. Boris Mouravieff, a 20th-century mystic, wrote explicitly about “two races” of mankind co-existing: one essentially human in form but not in essence, lacking the higher centers of consciousness that the other possesses​. According to this teaching, these soulless or pre-Adamic people are indistinguishable outwardly and perform all the same earthly functions, yet they do not have the capacity for spiritual evolution on their own. They were considered part of the natural order—organic portals, as some modern occultists dub them—through which the energy of the universe flows but in whom it does not individualize as an aware self. This idea uncannily prefigures the NPC concept: a large portion of humanity might be, in effect, animate but not truly sentient in the highest sense.

Such metaphysical assertions are impossible to verify scientifically, but they show a consistent thread in human thought: not everyone is alike internally. From ancient spiritual texts to contemporary internet folklore, we find the suggestion that some people are essentially props or placeholders in the grand play of life. Even the popular culture meme of calling someone an “NPC” (as an insult for lack of independent thought) unwittingly echoes these age-old notions. Experiencers of paranormal phenomena have even claimed that one can identify NPCs by a certain emptiness in their eyes or aura, though such claims remain anecdotal.

The lucid dream evidence provides a microcosm demonstration that consciousness can be simulated. A single mind (the dreamer’s) can populate a world with multiple characters who each act self-aware to varying degrees. None are truly conscious, yet they convincingly populate the dream and even argue for their reality. If, as some theorists suggest, our waking reality is generated by some greater Mind or computer, it could likewise populate our world with countless simulated minds. The true players might be few, or even just one (solipsism), but to give that player a rich experience, the simulation furnishes a cast of billions of NPCs. This perspective casts reports of “soulless” humans or spiritless beings in a new light: they could be observers intuiting the underlying fact that some around them are part of the program.

Tactical Implications in a World of NPCs

Entertaining the possibility that many humans are NPCs is not merely an abstract exercise—it has practical and tactical implications. If one operates under the assumption (provisionally) that a significant fraction of people lack full agency or inner awareness, certain strategies for navigating society emerge:

• Manage Expectations and Communication: In dealing with individuals who exhibit NPC-like traits (highly scripted responses, no independent opinions), it may be unproductive to attempt deep logical or emotional appeals. One might recognize when a person is just “playing their role” and adjust interactions accordingly. For example, if a bureaucrat or customer service rep seems to be following a script, the tactical move is to work within that script or find ways to trigger a favorable pre-coded response, rather than trying to invoke personal empathy or creativity that isn’t there.

• Identify Key Players: In any organization or community, a minority of people likely drive innovation, problem-solving, and original ideas (the “players”). The NPC hypothesis reinforces focusing attention on those individuals. In strategy terms, influence the influencers. The masses may follow automatically once a new script is introduced, so direct your efforts toward the conscious minority capable of genuine decision-making. This is akin to convincing the programmers, not the programs. If you can seed an idea with the true agents (assuming you can discern them), the rest will amplify it by default, as they are predisposed to follow trends.

• Psychological Operations: Understanding NPC behavior can be a tool. Since many people respond reflexively to stimuli, one could craft messages or environments that exploit these automatic reactions. This is already the bread and butter of advertising and propaganda—craft slogans and imagery that appeal to the “lowest common denominator” to sway the group. If indeed NPC-like individuals are essentially running on predictable algorithms, those algorithms can be learned and leveraged. For instance, creating an illusion of popularity or consensus (e.g. online bot amplification) can draw real-world NPC-type humans into echoing that consensus, due to their programming to follow the crowd.

• Avoiding Frustration and Isolation: On a personal level, the NPC framework can offer a strange form of solace. Realizing that many people literally cannot step outside their narrow perspective (if they are indeed NPCs) might help one take less offense at the herd behavior, shallow conversation, or lack of originality encountered daily. It becomes “not personal”—just the way the system is. This mindset, however, walks a fine line; it should not devolve into dehumanization. From a tactical perspective, it means allocating your emotional energy wisely. Don’t expect depth from those who have shown themselves to be essentially running a script. Seek out the ones capable of genuine connection for meaningful relationships, and treat the rest with cordial detachment.

• Security and Vigilance: If NPCs are real, they could be manipulated by the simulation in ways players are not. There are anecdotes in conspiracy circles of “agent Smith” phenomena (a reference to The Matrix films) where ordinary people abruptly turn hostile or obstructive when a person gets too close to uncovering the simulation. Tactically, an aware individual might be cautious about broadcasting their knowledge. NPCs around them could unwittingly act as monitors or saboteurs triggered by the system’s defense mechanisms. This doesn’t mean paranoia, but a healthy respect that the environment (and its human instruments) might respond to certain behaviors. In practical terms: move carefully when challenging collective assumptions, and have contingency plans if you notice patently scripted pushback from multiple fronts.

At a societal level, the notion that many are NPCs might encourage leaders to structure systems that assume a certain passivity or lack of foresight in the populace. One could argue this already happens: economics, politics, and marketing often proceed with the implicit model of a mostly irrational, reactive public. Tactically, policies could be designed that “nudge” the masses rather than expecting informed consent or opposition. For better or worse, treating people as NPCs can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in governance.

Ethical Considerations: Any tactical approach to an NPC-populated world must grapple with ethics. It is easy for this idea to justify arrogance or abuse (“those people aren’t real, so I can do what I want with them”). A savvy operator would instead adopt a form of Pascal’s Wager here: you can’t be certain who is a true conscious being and who isn’t, so treat all individuals with baseline respect and rights as if they could be fully sentient. After all, even if many are NPCs, the simulation clearly intended them to appear human; harming or exploiting them could still carry consequences—whether moral, legal, or karmic. The NPC hypothesis should be used as a lens for understanding and strategy, not as a carte blanche to victimize others. If anything, it calls for a degree of detachment and humility. One might view life’s social complexities as a kind of game: play skillfully, but remember that any “NPC” is ultimately part of the same system as you. In a game, wanton destruction of NPCs might corrupt the game or derail your mission.

In summary, operating under the NPC paradigm means focusing on what works. It encourages a pragmatic approach to social interaction, leadership, and personal growth. Instead of trying to awaken everyone to self-awareness (which may be futile if the hypothesis is true), the tactician focuses on leveraging the predictability where it exists and bonding with the genuinely aware where they can be found. Whether or not one fully believes the theory, acting “as if” a lot of people have limited agency can yield strategies that often align with reality as we observe it.

Conclusion

The notion that a portion of the human population could be NPCs in a grand simulation is undoubtedly controversial. However, as this report has detailed, there is a convergence of evidence and observations—behavioral, cognitive, theoretical, and experiential—that lend the idea a surprising degree of plausibility. From everyday people behaving like automatons, to neurological minorities lacking inner experiences, to the efficiency needs of a simulated universe, and to ancient spiritual teachings about soulless humans, the puzzle pieces form an intriguing pattern. It is as if two narratives run in parallel: one, that every person we meet is a fully conscious being like ourselves; and another, whispered by science fiction and mystics alike, that some of those people are just part of the scenery.

Crucially, acknowledging this possibility does not require a nihilistic or misanthropic outlook. If anything, it challenges us to refine our understanding of consciousness and appreciate those who do demonstrate genuine awareness, creativity, and empathy. It also forces us to remain critical of consensus reality—if so many just go along with the script, truth may not always lie with the majority. For those who feel “awake” in a sleeping world, the NPC theory might resonate as an explanation for the disconnect they sense with others. True or not, it provides a framework that validates why it sometimes feels like only a few individuals truly drive history while masses follow.

In the end, the NPC hypothesis remains a theory—unprovable given our current limitations. It should be approached as a thought experiment rather than doctrine. That said, our investigation has shown it is far more than a cheap internet meme. When serious academics like those at MIT are pondering whether we might all be NPCs, and legitimate studies reveal unexpected voids in inner life among us, the line between reality and simulation blurs. As we advance further into an age of AI and virtual worlds, the idea that we ourselves might be AI in someone else’s virtual world becomes less absurd.

Whether we live among NPCs or not, acting with awareness, curiosity, and compassion is within our control. If the world is a simulation, perhaps the ultimate test for the players is how we treat the NPCs and each other. Are we tempted to dismiss others as mere objects, or do we strive to find meaning and connection regardless? Until the day comes when the curtain is definitively lifted on the nature of our reality, we must navigate ambiguity. This report has armed the reader with a new lens and tactical mindset—one that might prove useful should the NPC hypothesis be true, and no less interesting if it is not. In the theatre of life’s possibilities, keep questioning the script… for that very impulse may be what separates the players from the NPCs.

References

1. Killingsworth, M. & Gilbert, D. Wandering mind not a happy mind. Harvard Gazette (2010) – Study found people spend ~46.9% of waking hours mind-wandering, operating on “autopilot” news.harvard.edu.

2. Uliano, P. Life Simulation NPC’s (Simulation Theory for Gamers). Medium (2021) – Observational essay noting many people exhibit scripted behavior; e.g. almost all subjects replied to nonsensical greetings with canned phrases, failing to notice the anomaly ​ulianopeter.medium.com.

3. Bast, R. NPCs Won’t Be Creative Types. We Are Not Real (blog) (2022) – Argues the vast majority of people (est. 90%) simply follow trends and lack originality, acting as background characters for the creative minority​ wearenotreal.com.

4. Nedergård, J. & Lupyan, G. Not everybody has an inner voice: Behavioral consequences of anendophasia. Psychological Science (2024) – Reported 5–10% of people do not experience an internal monologue​ sciencedaily.com, indicating significant variation in inner conscious dialogue among individuals.

5. Zeman, A. Aphantasia and hyperphantasia – exploring imagery vividness extremes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2023) – Research review estimates ~1% of the population has aphantasia (no mental imagery), rising to ~5% under broad criteria ​news.exeter.ac.uk, suggesting some brains run without visual simulation.

6. Christian, J. MIT Prof: If We Live in a Simulation, Are We Players or NPCs? Futurism (2019) – Highlights Rizwan Virk’s interview discussing whether our reality contains non-player characters to “round out a player’s experience” in the simulation ​futurism.com.

7. Cooperman, J. Two Sides of the Simulation Hypothesis (2020) – Explains that quantum indeterminacy could be a rendering optimization in a simulated universe. Just as games don’t render unseen areas, the world might “save state” and render detail (or consciousness) only when observed ​jordancooperman.com.

8. Gackenbach, J. Non-Self Characters in Lucid Dreams. Psychology Today (2016) – Describes lucid dream experiments where dream characters acted independently of the dreamer. When asked if they know they’re not real, a character insisted “I am just as real as you, although my body is immaterial.”​ psychologytoday.com, exemplifying an NPC-like entity within a dream.

9. Mouravieff, B. (as cited in Organic Portals – Soulless Humans, Veil of Reality blog, 2011) – Proposes humanity comprises two look-alike races: “one of Men, and another of Anthropoids,” outwardly identical but lacking an inner divine spark ​veilofreality.com. The “pre-adamic” humans do not possess higher centers of consciousness ​veilofreality.com, paralleling modern NPC theory in esoteric terms.