> All three of these engage our entire bodies, senses, and hands in an integrated, much deeper way than a controller and rectangle of pixels does.

I think this very well might be the major difference between those pursuits and screen media. The latter can not yet both simulate those experiences and stimulate the body at the same time.

This distinction between physical experiences from those that solely stimulate the mind, I feel, is the only way you can prioritize the worthiness of one over the other. Certainly it feels exhausting to have consumed a bunch of content that stimulated the mind while the body was immobile the entire time, yes. But I think any further value judgments between the two are subject and based on one's own moral philosophy. In many cases, examples of the "real" can be as morally judged against. For instance, the idea of billionaires and politicians buying lavish ranches and then mugging for the camera while they're playacting as farmers and cowboys when they are just living out a caricature of real labor.

If the key difference between the physical and the purely intellectual is the lack of effects on the former, one wonders if the end goal will be to be able to stimulate the body while the mind is being stimulated (even if only by simulation), or deeper and invasive forms of mind stimulation that make it appear as if the body has been stimulated as well. Rest assured, our top giant corporations are working on this problem even as we speak.