Multilarity #4: The Duality of Virtual Reality
Multilarity #4: The Duality of Virtual Reality
A technology for peril or prosperity?
I recently demoed Apple’s new Vision Pro, but no, this won’t be another review about the technology or features. Today’s newsletter will share perspectives and insights related to how this technology (‘virtual reality’ for the purposes of this newsletter, but also referred to as spatial computing, mixed reality, extended reality, etc.) will impact humanity at a broader philosophical and societal level. Consider this a collaborative essay, using curated sources to inform the discussion. The symbiosis between computing and the human condition engenders a complex interplay of ideas and opinions, a reality we must confront, whether or not we're equipped with high-tech ski goggles.
If you enjoy this content, please consider sharing or subscribing. Your support is invaluable in this virtual world!
I like to think of technology as embodying a 'technoduality' — specific technologies are neutral for any given person. For example, much has been said about the internet's unprecedented scale of information and communication, and its benefits to individuals. However, it can also encourage the darker sides of human nature. At a broader level, when speaking of technology as a whole, I believe it is a force for good, that it leads to a net positive result in the utilitarian equation of its impacts. We will cure cancer, go to mars, and find harmony with the planet. But as of now, the past guarantees nothing about the future. As discussed in Nick Bostrom’s paper shared in Multilarity #2 on future scenarios, technology is a likely 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 has brought about 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. Throughout this essay and newsletter, I’ll be sharing ideas from both sides. Let’s start with a pair of cautious warnings.
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 a siren call that sickens connection with the physical world. In a pair of essays, Vision Con by L. M. Sacasas and Looking Away by Rob Horning, the authors make a thoughtful plea to not let this shiny new screen further erode our engagement with the physical world.
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 the way of a critique that starts with a questioning of the inherent purpose behind the Vision Pro, suggesting it’s just a technology for technology’s sake. He shares Sacasas’ take, saying:
“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 reality. 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 allure of these new screens and find moderation, a challenge we've struggled with in the past?
Using TikTok on Apple Vision Pro has changed my life:
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 an illusion, 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. Last year Chalmers released Reality+ (*adds to TBR pile*), a book that analyzes the philosophical impact of virtual reality. In Lithub, you can read an excerpt, 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 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 challenging the notion that virtual reality is merely an illusion, Chalmers expands our understanding of authentic reality to include virtual realities, mixed realities, metaverses, and beyond. This is important, because 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.
I highly recommend the Edge essay in particular for those who are curious about the intersection of technology and philosophy. It dives into some mind-bending curves, past the simulation argument, the Experience Machine, mind uploading, artificial intelligence, and more.
The Ethics of Virtual Embodiment
In the beginning of this newsletter, we discussed some of the pessimistic implications of 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 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 on psychological issues about himself, but then also embody 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 showcase the power of virtual reality in helping widen the possibilities of perspectives we can take, which can have innumerable psychological benefits. 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 nine years ago “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.
Yet, Rothman writes on the potential dangers of this transformation:
“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.’”
Joshua Rothman
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? Angela Buckingham also 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.
Essays referenced in this section:
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.”
Tim Urban
Communication, education, entertainment, and travel are use-cases that can bring benefits to millions. In his essay for The New Yorker, Jaron Lanier, who coined the term “virtual reality,” writes about his optimism 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.”
Jaron Lanier
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, also touted by Mark Zuckerberg, 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.”
David J. Chalmers
And 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.”
Matrise
In this video edit by Jules Terpak, we hear from a virtual avatar who speaks on the existential nature of reality, the pull of virtual reality’s magic. Yet despite this pull, the avatar ends by saying “don’t neglect the IRL.”
Whatever you may think of the Vision Pro’s capabilities, you cannot deny that it is a monumental step toward the virtual worlds described in this essay. Society is at the dawn of a new technological awakening, a march of our minds to new territories, making reality our servant, for better or for worse. Even if we could stop this march, I don’t believe I would. I may not be able to drink water in virtual reality yet, but in my castle on the moon, the aesthetic glasses will all be half full.
If you enjoyed this newsletter, please consider forwarding it to a friend or subscribing if you are new here.
Multilarity represents a synergy of human imagination and AI capabilities, reflecting a new era of collaborative writing. AI assists in maximizing clarity and creativity in this newsletter with things like brainstorming, curation, grammar, language refinement, and summaries. Multilarity encompasses a multiverse of ideas and words, spanning across time, various virtual programs, and the minds of both myself and those whose work I curate.