#1: Thinking Out Loud series: These editions are semi-structured rambles and differ from the typical themes of this newsletter.
I was in Goa yesterday, hanging out with my closest friends, swimming in the ocean, and running along the beach. I was having a great time. Then I woke up. My immediate feeling was disappointment. Why was it just a dream? You have probably been there, too. But then, why does it matter? Don’t we do things in real to have the experience? Why is the experience of a good time less valid when it is not ‘real’?1
I think at least two aspects make ‘real’ experiences more desirable than dreams. First, we like to relish the memories we collect by doing things.2 Unfortunately, for most people, dreams are notoriously difficult to remember vividly after a few hours.
Second, the fun part about reality is that it is collectively lived. We know that others also experience it in broadly similar ways. If you saw a sunset with others, all of you have some common idea of what it was like. You may experience things with people you do not know or may never talk to — say, a stranger on the street — but you know they are having a similar experience. It validates that something is ‘real’ and not just in your head. Your dreams, on the other hand, are just that: yours. There is no one to validate it.
The pleasure machine
The famous pleasure machine thought experiment, proposed by Robert Nozick in 1974, questions the relative importance of plain experience.
In this thought experiment, psychologists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those they would have apart from the machine. He then asks, if given the choice, would the subject prefer the machine to real life?
It turns out that most people would not want that. I do not fully understand what drives it, but it seems we might care about actually doing things, not just the subjective experience. There are also counterarguments against the pleasure machine thought experiment, the most prominent being the status quo bias argument.
Status Quo bias
Psychologist and philosopher Joshua Greene has argued that status quo bias may affect intuitions about the pleasure machine and suggests reformulating it. According to his version:
You wake up in a plain white room. You are seated in a reclining chair with a steel contraption on your head. A woman in a white coat is standing over you. 'The year is 2659,' she explains, 'The life with which you are familiar is an experience machine program selected by you some forty years ago. We at IEM interrupt our client's programs at ten-year intervals to ensure client satisfaction. Our records indicate that at your three previous interruptions you deemed your program satisfactory and chose to continue. As before, if you choose to continue with your program you will return to your life as you know it with no recollection of this interruption. Your friends, loved ones, and projects will all be there. Of course, you may choose to terminate your program at this point if you are unsatisfied for any reason. Do you intend to continue with your program?
With this formulation, we are more inclined to continue the program: the ‘life’ simulated through the machine is practically the only ‘real’ life we know.
Similarly, in his paper If You Like It, Does It Matter If It's Real?, philosopher Felipe de Brigard demonstrates the importance of status quo:
In contrast to the main experiment, De Brigard asked 72 US university undergraduates whether they would like to disconnect from the machine given that they were already in it. About their "real" life, they were told one of three stories: (a) nothing; (b) that they were prisoners in a maximum security prison; or (c) that they were multimillionaire artists living in Monaco. Of those who were told nothing of their "real" lives, 54% wished to disconnect from the machine. Of those who were told they were prisoners, only 13% wished to disconnect. This implies that one's real-life quality impacts whether it is preferred to the machine. Of those told they were rich inhabitants of Monaco, half chose to disconnect, comparable to the proportion given no information about their "real" life. De Brigard attributes his findings to status quo bias. He argues that someone's decision not to step into the machine has more to do with wanting the status quo than with preference of the current life over the simulated one.
An indication soon?
So far, these arguments have been purely theoretical. But what if we can experience things that are not ‘real’ but do so collectively and remember them? With improvements in virtual and augmented reality technologies, this seems realistic within our lifetimes. Would people still want to physically travel to Paris or simply take a virtual tour — that would also alter the city to their liking — with friends?
I think the desire to experience raw reality — knowing that it is ‘real’ — will remain, but we will become much more comfortable with virtual realities. This is similar to movies being the mainstream option, but we enjoy watching live plays once in a while. I cannot wait to see what the brave new world offers.
Recommendations:
[Book] Anarchy, State, And Utopia by Robert Nozick.
[Video] Nikhil Kamath in conversation with Bill Gates on his early Microsoft days to his work with the Gates Foundation, the role of philanthropy in society, energy transition, the possibilities of AGI, and its impact on society, money, and jobs.
[Movie] Inception and Matrix are based on the themes discussed in this edition. Most of you have probably watched them already.
[Paper] A Few Goodmen: Surname-Sharing Economist Coauthors is the “first paper to have four economist coauthors who share a surname, as well as the first where such coauthors are unrelated by marriage, blood or current campus”.
I will avoid getting into the philosophical definition of ‘reality’. For the purpose of this article, I am using the word colloquially to refer to our daily regular experiences as ‘real’.
Consider this thought experiment: you have two options. You can either have your ideal vacation but will not have any memory of it once you’ve completed it. Or, second, you can take a slightly less than ideal vacation, but it would be like a regular trip that you will remember. What do you choose?
Nice one..PS #2 is referencing Kahneman's experiencing self Vs remembering self - isn't it! Though I would like to say the former, I know I will end up giving in to choose the latter.
Also, I think in all the experiments that you have cited, I think the illusion of choice comes with the assumption that one is able to confirm that the reality that you have been woken up in is the 'actual' one..How does one do that? Is there really a totem that lets you discern!!
Finally, reminded of this fantastic story that talks to this dichotomy...Many Upanishads tackle this topic really well.
https://medium.com/sanatana-dharma/the-story-of-king-janaka-3b5a3133f162