Today, I came across a very interesting little thought experiment while reading through my Philosophy texts. It's called "The Experience Machine," and it was proposed by Robert Nozick in 1974. It runs as follows:
Imagine, if you will, that we live in a far future which possesses the technology necessary for an "Experience Machine". An Experience Machine would be able to plug into one's senses and allow them to experience, well, anything. Because it would run directly into the five senses, whatever one would choose to experience would be completely indistinguishable from reality. You could use it for something as simple as a simulation of a vacation of a few hours, or you could choose to live in the simulation. One great application that was discussed was the virtual house; a house that is in reality constructed by cinderblocks to be indestructible, but made to look like a beautiful condo with the machine.
Nozick then asks this - would we prefer to live within the machine, or in reality?
My knee-jerk reaction was no. Even if it looks like a beautiful condo, I'd still know that it was a cinderblock cave within. But then, I realized that it would likely be furnished within through some digital means. It would probably also be much safer than an actual house built for beauty rather than to withstand the elements. So, in this situation, I suppose I wouldn't actually mind having to "live in the machine"; I surprised myself here.
But Nozick meant a deeper question when he asked it. We're humans; if we have the ability to simulate reality, where will we stop? Houses are fine, but what happens when we choose to simulate life itself? What about when we simulate a happy marriage to avoid a lonely life? When we choose to educate our children not on campuses, but in entirely virtual schools? When we realize that we will eventually die in reality, which will not necessarily occur within a simulation? If we choose to live within the machine, it'll be awfully hard to get out. As they say, the genie won't go back into the bottle easily.
There are a lot of problems stemming from this. The ones that really stuck out to me, though, were those involving the individual living within this society. Will society ever even see each other? Will we only know fellow humans through avatars? Will we even know that it was ever different? Will children play with balls and toys anymore, or will they even know what playing is? Will they even want to play? It's not hard to see what could go wrong with a meshing of the virtual and the natural. There are many positives that could come of it; it's just a matter of where we as a species can draw the line. And as shown by our track record from imperialism to concrete jungles, we're very, very bad at drawing the line.
I have no doubt that we will eventually encounter some sort of simulated reality of this kind as technology continues its swift crawl out of the primordial ooze. The question is less of if, or even when. Instead, it's how we will approach such a thing. Philosophical thought questions such as these are interesting when defining the human experience, and it's even more interesting to probe into humanity's future.
Personally, I'd like to think that we as a species have a bit more foresight than I've given them credit for. Hopefully, should such a machine appear on the horizon, we would take considerable precautions to avoid the things I've talked about. But even if we see virtual houses popping up on the hillside and virtual cities just behind them, there's still a comforting thought to be had: even in a world in which we can control reality, we as individuals can still remain in control of our own lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment