A while back I stumbled upon an article which questioned the reality of reality. Do we exist? How do we know we exist? Are we existing as a part of an alternate reality or simulation (The Matrix made millions toying with this simple, yet tantalizing and fascinating question). Descartes became famous for it, etched forever in history books as the man that was wrong, yet raised all the right questions (or at least, one essential question: Can we be absolutely positive that our own existence is real, that it is true?).
Inception, a more recent Hollywood hit, has captured the minds of millions of people worldwide with a similar concept, Facebook statuses everywhere throwing the greatness of the film (and, more importantly, the physical attractiveness of Leonardo DiCaprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt) into an endless sea of social networkers. Is reality just a dream? Is reality multi-layered, our futile human minds unaware of the truth that surrounds us? Does it even matter? If a human accepts reality as reality, even if it is not indeed THE reality - does that change his or her reality? The complexity of our minds opens them up to something like the concept of "inception" (which, if you are unaware, is the planting of a simple, basic idea into someones mind for the purpose of its grown and eventual overtaking of the mind). An example of inception could consist of me saying to you, "Do not think of radishes." You're thinking about radishes now, right?
References to an alternate reality in pop culture - on the web, in films, in books and in philosophy - engage the human mind in a thinking process which eradicates what our senses and experience tell us (that the world is real and it would be ridiculous to think otherwise), and replaces it with a simple idea that infests you like a virus taking over a computer.
A while back, a friend brought up that this thought had recently taken hold of her mind - the idea that the world is all a simulation, that we are humans existing somewhere else in reality yet experiencing our own reality as a simple simulation or computer program. At the time, a few articles by John Tierney, a writer for the Science section of The New York Times, had caught my eye. I would definitely check out the article if you are even remotely interested in this sort of stuff (and I'm guessing you are if you've made it this far). If you don't have the time to read it, though, what Tierney basically says is that, in talking to an Oxford philosophy professor, he was awakened to the idea that we may not really be people at all but rather a series of minds (or I suppose, brains) connected in a vast computer network brought together by a simulated world. Hypothetically speaking, Tierney says, technology can be assumed to extend past the capability of the human brain, and, eventually, far surpassing that - with the ability to harness and manipulate the power of the human brain. This is a scary thought, but this sort of brain-harnessing and/or manipulating ability might not be far off considering the sorts of "video game" technologies in the works. This Cracked article horrifyingly points out that Sony already has a patent for technology which will be able to fire ultrasound pulses into the brain in order to project sensory experiences. Combine that with even more advanced technologies at the time of its release along some sort of "Society" type video game (think The Sims on steroids), and soon enough you have the sort of world that the Wachowski brothers dream up becoming full blown reality.
You are probably very skeptical, as was I when I first started delving into what seemed to be an inevitable future of extremely detailed pixels and interactions with said entities. I looked a little more into what seems to be on the horizon in terms of mind/brain technology, and stumbled upon a CNN article within which Ian Pearson, a scientist for British Telecom, declared that brain downloads will likely be available by the middle of the 21st century. He says that the Playstation 5 (think about that, that's only 2 generations of gaming systems away) will likely be as powerful as a human brain. The fathomability of such a reality becomes more and more likely as the horizons of technology are observed closely. In addition to the prophecy about brain downloads, Pearson predicts that, "...computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of crashing. By 2020 Pearson also predicated the creation of a "virtual world" of immersive computer-generated environments in which we will spend increasing amounts of time, socializing and doing business." Basically, imagine facebook where you can touch and talk to your friends in person, without actually being with them. Crazy, huh?
The reason why I am bringing all of this talk about elaborate simulated worlds and video games? Well, Tierney suggests that all these technologies could be harnessed, right now, and we wouldn't even know it - because we would blindly be taking part in the simulation. There is no way to tell if the technological advent of the brain has occurred yet, but we do know that it will, at some point, occur. So, for all we know, in reality the technological advent and subsequent enslaving of our selves has already occurred. Posthumans, humans if they are still around or just what Tierney dubs "The Prime Designer" - he, she or it who ran the first simulation, and thus enabled the continuance of our existence within the context of an "ancestor" simulation (one that replicates human history - in order to effectively immerse, distract and contain the human mind - up to the point of the enabling of simulation).
Color me skeptical yet intrigued. The proposition absolutely makes sense, and I suppose could be true - though I don't want it to be. Even if it is true, though, does it effect my reality? I have no way of knowing (ever, i would assume) if I was actually a part of a posthuman technological mind simulation, yet I still feel, I still touch, I still smell, I still think. My reality is reality even if it is not reality. Tierney and Bostrom throw out some bogus numbers to function as a "percentage likelihood" that me, you, or they are indeed actually a part of such a simulation. Why do those numbers matter? The question Inception puts forth is a worthy parallel: Does it matter if your world is the dream world or the real world if the dream world is completely real while you dream? I would say that no, it doesn't - though I absolutely would still like to know the truth, the reality, the real real if given the option. So it does matter on a deeper level, a level that probes my heart and my soul. If given the choice between the blue pill and the red pill, I choose the red pill. At the same time, I don't see "The Prime Designer" creating a Morpheus (or a Morpheus existing outside) to enable such an event to occur (if existence was even possible outside the simulation at that point in time).
I don't think the important question here is whether or not the world is simulated or real, but rather why this idea has such a hold on society as a whole as well as such a large presence in popular culture. As philosopher David Chalmers points out, the "brain in vat" or "brain connected to computer" theory could simply be a different metaphysical description of creation or of "being." This raises questions about modern society, though, in a roundabout way. Have we become so abstracted from life itself that we are unable to distinguish the real from the simulated? Can we not feel anymore? Do we, maybe, actually believe in hypotheses such as these because they most accurately reflect the blank, empty and fake reality that we live in each day? This is something that I am more interested in and will save for a later date (and almost certainly will be my next post).
In the meantime, Tierney has a few more interesting articles out in The New York Times for mulling over.
-This one deals with the moral implications of such a world, and considers what it would be like for "The Prime Designer" to create an "ancestor simulation"
-Another points out that the ethics involved in such a simulation would mean that certain emotions and life themes could give clues to whether you are indeed living in a simulated or real world (though this is a little bit circular...)
-Tierney lays out how creating a simulation would be possible, largely in response to a slew of reader comments insisting that its creation would be impossible
-His last article has a little fun, inviting readers to participate in a contest that addresses "The Prime Designer" him, her, or itself in the case that there is actually some sort of quasi-deity monitoring each and every one of our simulated lives (and here's the list of winners if you're interested)
Now, I shall go dream. Or will it be a dream within a dream? A dream within a dream within a simulated reality within reality?
