Between Glass and Grass
Exploring the Philosophical Duality of Virtual and Physical Realities
Originally written in February of 2024, this essay has been lightly revised as part of an ongoing effort to revisit and refine my thinking.
Although the allure of Apple’s Vision Pro has faded over the last year, I remain confident that it or technology like it will only continue to grow in usage over time. Given this assertion, I'm deeply curious about the philosophical and social implications of immersive technologies: virtual reality, spatial computing, extended reality, etc. The symbiosis between computing and the human condition engenders an intricate web of consequences and possibilities — one we must face whether glimpsed through high-tech ski goggles or chips implanted directly into our brains.
I like to think of technology through the lens of an idea I call the “technoduality.” Every technology is inherently neutral, with its impact on society dependent on how it is used. For example, many celebrate the internet’s ability to scale global communication and information access. However, as has become painfully clear over the last decade, it can also encourage the darker sides of human nature. At a broader level, when speaking of technology as a whole, I’m an optimist. I believe it will lead to a net positive outcome in the utilitarian equation of its impacts: we will cure cancer, travel the galaxy, and find harmony with the planet. Still, we must remain wary — technology is also a leading candidate for our untimely doom. I remain hopeful, but we must not declare victory until the only threat to humanity’s existence is not us and our technology, but forces outside our own hands, i.e. extraterrestrial species, the death of the sun, etc.
I introduce this discussion on virtual reality with this technoduality because the release of Apple’s Vision Pro reignited a philosophical debate on the role this immersive technology should play in our lives. Some believe it is a world-changer, others fear it will dehumanize us further, stripping the phone out of the hand into something much more dystopian. In this exploration, we will examine voices on both sides of this digital divide. First, a cautionary note.
Seeing Through the Illusion
If one reviewed the landscape of their lives, screens are potentially the most important physical object besides those that sustain our baseline needs. The hours upon hours staring at these rectangles and squares has transformed society in many ways, not least of which is the transmission of a virus that infects our immune systems with a disease that dissociates us from physical reality. We touch screens, not grass. In a pair of complementary essays — Vision Con by L. M. Sacasas and Looking Away by Rob Horning — the authors thoughtfully implore us not to let this new screen further dissolve our ties to tangible reality. In his essay, Sacasas invokes a quote from Wendell Berry about how the future of humanity will be a push and pull “between people who wish to live as creatures and people who wish to live as machines.” This is reminiscent of the age-old battle between technologists and luddites. Sacasas seems to lean to the side of the creatures:
“The more pressing concern now is whether a growing enthrallment to devices that capture our attention precludes an affective attachment to the world (and, as Bennett feared, our desire to care for it). And to the degree that our virtual worlds are bespoke realities ostensibly constructed for us, whether they also deprive us of an experience of a common world, one we share with others, thus accentuating rather than alleviating an experience of alienation and isolation. Vision Pro, a set of goggles you literally place over your eyes, presents us with a viscerally dramatic symbol of such a deprivation.”
L. M. Sacasas
Horning shares a similar conclusion through a critique questioning the inherent purpose behind the Vision Pro, suggesting it’s just a technology for technology’s sake. He says:
“It offers a real-time demonstration of how reality reduces to the size of screens, breaking the world down into information chunks where it would otherwise be a continuous experience of infinite, inexhaustible richness.”
Rob Horning
Together, these two writers share a profound primacy for physical reality. They suggest that virtual reality could help us find deeper meaning in our physical world, however, as Horning elegantly concludes, “...the need to look away can’t be accommodated by a device that is designed to control what you see."
On X, Alex Finn has put together a number of exaggerated videos parodying the digital dopamine overdose the Vision Pro can create. It offers a humorous but compelling view of the potential reality these writers warn us about, making us wonder if we can handle another transformative digital technology. Can we resist the overpowering seduction of these new screens and achieve moderation, a challenge we still haven’t mastered with our phones?
As promised though, there is a duality to this technology. Let’s swing to the optimistic lens, a tour through this new reality with philosopher David J. Chalmers as our guide.
Theory: Virtual = Physical
For Chalmers, virtual reality is not just a digital facade, he believes that virtual reality = physical reality. Just because it is a digital world, that it requires an extended device, that it is owned by corporations, doesn’t mean that people can’t create truly meaningful experiences, maybe even full lives, in a virtual reality environment. In Lithub, you can read an excerpt of Chalmers’ book Reality+, which clearly states his position: “In principle, VR can be much more than escapism. It can be a full-blooded environment for living a genuine life.”
Chalmers has been thinking about this for many years, this 2017 essay in Edge includes many gems on virtual reality’s role in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and more. One of the more interesting discussions centers around this thesis that the virtual = physical, with him saying that “There needn’t be any illusion involved when we’re using virtual reality. We perceive virtual objects, and those objects really exist.” He calls back to John Wheeler’s famous “It from bit” idea, which states that the physical universe is information at the most fundamental level. One of my favorite non-fiction books, Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark, expands on this sentiment by suggesting that at the most basic level, our universe is just mathematical structures, or code if you will.
“I think of this view as a sort of functionalism or structuralism about space, solidity, and other aspects of the physical world. What matters for a physical world is the pattern of interactions. This view helps to make sense of how quantum mechanics and other physical theories support the physical world we experience. It also helps to make sense of virtual reality.”
David J. Chalmers
By confronting the assumption that virtual worlds are merely illusions, Chalmers widens the scope of what we perceive as authentic reality, folding virtual realms, mixed realities, and metaverses into a single continuum of genuine experience. This is important, as although he won’t declare virtual reality a utopia, he opens the door to the optimistic perspective, suggesting that meaning could await us in these virtual worlds. We don’t need to take off the goggles if we don’t want to.
“I’m not saying that virtual worlds will be some sort of utopia. Like the internet, VR technology will almost certainly lead to awful things as well as wonderful things. It’s certain to be abused. Physical reality is abused, too. Like physical reality, virtual reality has room for the full range of the human condition—the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
David J. Chalmers
Next, we’ll explore some ethical quandaries at the center of the technology. If it is a meaningful reality like Chalmers says, then we must further grasp the impact it may have on our psychology.
The Ethics of Virtual Embodiment
In the beginning of this newsletter we discussed some of the pessimistic implications of the Vision Pro and virtual reality, focusing on how it may create alienation, digital addiction, and a separation from true reality. Chalmers pushes against this, stating that a virtual reality is not a second class citizen. I agree with this claim, which thus warrants a deeper examination of issues that may present themselves in these virtual worlds.
In 2018, Joshua Rothman profiled Thomas Metzinger in The New Yorker, exploring the implications of research on “virtual embodiment.” Through a series of experiments, the researchers are able to place a person in virtual reality and have them believe they are someone else, experiencing the concept of self from a new perspective. In the piece, Rothman is put in a simulation of therapy with Sigmund Freud and proceeds to speak about his psychological issues, but then also embodies the virtual Freud, giving himself advice from a different perspective. In another scenario, he embodies a robot in another room and feels a phantom touch from its hand.
These experiments illustrate virtual reality’s extraordinary power to expand our cognitive horizons, unlocking perspectives previously beyond our psychological reach. Call it embodiment, presence, immersion — it reshapes our thinking in a new way that no media channel has before. As Chris Dixon puts it in an essay from 2015:
“VR will be the ultimate input-output device. Some people call VR ‘the last medium’ because any subsequent medium can be invented inside of VR, using software alone.”
If the medium is the message, then the virtual is the reality. Rothman does not ignore the dangers though, writing:
“Pushing a Punch or Shoot button on a game controller and watching the results on a screen, he writes, is ‘an entirely different experience’ from playing an immersive, first-person V.R. game in which you use your virtual arms and hands to strike or stab an opponent, or to aim a gun at him and pull the trigger. In their V.R. code of ethics, Metzinger and Madary predict that the ‘risk of users suffering psychological trauma will steadily increase as V.R. technology advances.’ Metzinger believes that virtual killing and sexual violence should be prohibited. He also worries about scenarios that encourage the character traits that psychologists refer to as “the dark triad”: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. He fears the effects of a V.R. ‘Westworld.’”
As a society, we must decide where we want the line to be drawn. Can we trust virtual reality like we do video games, or does the embodiment take it too far? In an essay in Aeon Magazine, Angela Buckingham writes that “Murder in virtual reality should be illegal.” The argument is thought-provoking, but at the same time, we do not want to demonize the technology and remove the possibility of its benefits. In a Reddit discussion on the Buckingham essay, one user says:
“...the ability to do basically anything in a virtual setting where there are literally zero victims, for the sake of art, entertainment, expression, or creativity is strongly related to the principles that underlie freedom of speech and the freedom of religion and various other liberties we enjoy.”
BukkRogerrs on Reddit
Another user writes:
“In our modern society, we have made a choice to elevate the guarantee to freedom of speech/expression, which includes those expressions that have the potential for psychological harm. One's own psychological well-being is one's own responsibility.”
dan_arth on Reddit
Caution is necessary, but with book bans on the rise across the U.S., one can be wary of any outright mandates made without sufficient research and evidence. Let’s finish this virtual ride on a positive note, swinging back to the side of optimism.
To the Virtual Infinity & Beyond
Tim Urban of WaitButWhy gives a nice overview of the technology behind Vision Pro and shares thoughts on potential positive use-cases. He says:
“Amazing AI teachers could reach billions. Distance will melt away, allowing people to spend high-quality time with their loved ones, no matter where they are. People who couldn’t dream of traveling the world today will get to enjoy vivid experiences anywhere on the globe. Of course, my silly 2024 imagination can’t scratch the surface any more than people in the briefcase phone days could have predicted Uber, TikTok, or Tinder.”
The use of virtual reality in communication, education, entertainment, and travel can bring benefits to billions. In his essay for The New Yorker, Jaron Lanier, who coined the term “virtual reality,” writes about the optimism he had for the technology when he was working on it years ago:
“I used to wax on about how virtual reality would lead to a new style of “post-symbolic” communication, in which we would make experiences for one another, sharing them directly instead of just describing them.”
Although now Lanier has a more critical take on the technology, a stance we shouldn’t ignore given his leadership in the space, the idea of experience sharing is one that is tantalizing in its promise. In an interview with Epoche Magazine, Chalmers provides a vision that celebrates the fragmentation of infinity, the endless possibilities of experience sharing in virtual worlds:
“You could think about this not as a utopia, but as a meta-utopia, where there’ll be many different virtual worlds set up on many different principles and guidelines, and people will be able to choose what kind of virtual world they enter.”
These possibilities evoke the philosophy of existentialism! An essay on the website Matrise explores this combination, prompting deep introspection about the direction we want our lives to take and the role virtual reality can play in this journey.
“VR is essentially asking us who we are, or at any rate, who we want to become. We are being given the question of who we want to become through what we want to do, by the technology allowing this freedom.”
As this landscape matures, existential questions about our increasingly malleable reality will only grow more complex: identity may fracture and multiply, experiences may democratize at an unprecedented scale, and the ways we navigate our inner truths may irrevocably transform. Whatever you think of the Vision Pro’s capabilities, its arrival marks an inflection point toward the virtual worlds explored here. As we've seen, technology’s dual nature places us at a philosophical crossroads — we may allow these screens to become prisons of perception or use them as portals to liberation; the power is ours to wield. In a video edit by Jules Terpak, a virtual avatar reflects on the existential nature of reality and the magnetism of virtual worlds. Yet despite this pull, the avatar concludes with a reminder: “don’t neglect the IRL.” Grass continues to beckon from outside, but the promise of virtual blades that feel just as real is one I view through goggles and a glass half full.