In his book, Reality+, David Chalmers uses virtual reality as a new way to conceptualize old philosophical questions such as “are virtual worlds real?” and “can we know whether or not we are living in a virtual world”, in an attempt to make sense of our current reality and determine how “real” it might actually be. Although his work focuses primarily on understanding philosophical questions about the nature of our existence, inspired by some of his thinking, in this paper I discuss the inherent ethical limitations that constrain VR’s application in scientific experiments by examining my own questions. I discuss whether in an experiment we should impose moral and ethical limitations upon even “imaginary” “virtual” worlds? Does acknowledging this imply that virtual words are in fact real? And third, if yes to the previous questions, to what extent can VR actually be leveraged to discover new knowledge if in simulating our reality it is paradoxically restrained by it? From this I draw conclusions about the inherent need for ethical limitations that come with any technology used in scientific pursuit and the specific role that I believe VR can fill in research, by straddling both the “real” and “simulated”.
What is VR?
Virtual Reality allows us to simulate our current reality and has the possibility of blurring the lines between the “real” and “simulated”. Through VR technology we can simulate experiences, sensations and senses that might not actually be there, but we still feel as though they are. As explained by David Chalmers in Reality+, while “we do not say that it is exactly real…VR operates just below the reality horizon”, nevertheless “if stabbed with a virtual knife” we “might feel stress, anxiety and even pain”. Admittedly the level of immersion described is quite abstract, especially when paired with the idea that this is ultimately a simulated constructed world, so I went to try it myself at Studio X.
At first the simulation was disorienting as I struggled to get my bearings and figure out where my arms were. Oftentimes I found myself helplessly looking into an infinite void rather than at the game menu. My arm movements felt disjointed and I imagined myself as an old person struggling to use Facebook. But the brain adjusts itself to new sensations very quickly and the systems in mimicking real life are generally intuitive, so I soon was able to begin experiencing the games offered. I played a couple games such as roller coaster simulator and a plank walk. While I was not fooled by the clunky graphics, lack of other humanoid figures or absence of sensations of touch, the simulation was realistic enough for me to retain some reactions. Crucially I still retained realistic reflexes to stimuli both physical and mental. As stated by Chalmers if an object came flying at me I would still tense and recoil, if only for a moment. My involuntary thought upon seeing a large crevasse was not “this looks fake”, but rather “I shouldn't fall in”. Of course I wasn't fooled by any of these things, but for a split second before my rational thought kicked in I did feel and behave as if these things were real.
This sentiment is shared by Chalmers who remarks that “today's VR systems are primitive, the visual resolution for objects is grainy.” Crucially, the senses they can render are limited to sight and hearing because for now “you cant feel a virtual surface, touch a virtual flower, or taste a virtual glass of wine”. But he reminds us that “these temporary limitations will pass”, the technology is improving rapidly, and I witnessed it firsthand. At Studio X was able to try out two different models just a few years apart and witness the great pace of advancement represented in the gap between the two.
So it would seem the promise of VR is yet untapped, with the technology rapidly advancing to incorporate new senses of touch and taste while developing the immersion of existing senses. In time many hope that this simulation will reach such a level so as to become practically indistinguishable from our current reality. Although the ever advancing realism of VR creates the freedom and control that gives us greater ability to compare and study our world by simulating the “impossible”, this realism also raises fundamental moral ethical and philosophical questions that come with the pursuit of knowledge. Next, I would like to argue that VR and simulated worlds are not exempt from ethical limitations just because they are “simulated” and that as their realism increases, the importance of ethical guardrails will only rise with it.
In a famous 1960’s experiment, scientist Stanley Milgram wanted to understand the limits of people's deference to authority, and how they could be compelled by authority figures to do things they would personally find abhorrent. In his experiment, participants were made to believe they were administering an electric shock of increasing voltages to a live subject when they answered questions incorrectly. These ever increasing voltages were paired with the pre recorded “reactions” of the subject making participants believe the shocks they were delivering were causing great pain and distress. Nonetheless, when continually prompted by an observer, participants often would continue to increase the voltage up to the maximum level. The experiment showed that people could commit great cruelties when compelled by a authority figure to do so, but more importantly it spawned greater interest in scientific ethics, because the participants were deceived by the researchers into what they would be participated in, and coerced by them into increasing the voltage, despite their reservations, as explained by Slater and Sanchez-Vives in a 2016 paper. Through experiments like Milgram, clear lines of ethics within the scientific community have begun to emerge, and it is strongly accepted that there are limits to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, and basic rights afforded to participants.
But the emergence of VR adds a new dimension to this field of scientific ethics. In their paper Slater and Sanchez-Vives recounts how the Milgram experiment was performed again utilizing VR. participants once more administered shocks to a subject, this time in VR, and found that a significantly higher proportion administered shocks partly because “they kept reminding themselves that it was not real”. Expanding on Slater and Sanchez-Vive's thinking, it is this gap in realism that is precisely what makes this experiment ethically possible, where a participant finds balance between response to stimuli, and knowledge of it not being real. This of course comes at the cost of realistic reactions, and thus of useful scientific data. The level of realism of this experiment that kept it ethical was limited not by the wishes of the researchers, but by the level offered by the technology in its current state.
As the technology’s realism continues to improve, scientists will no doubt wish to leverage it to produce results more transferable to real life. So hypothetically, if VR improves enough to become “indistinguishable” from reality in the eyes of the participant, then is the experiment still ethical even if it is still “not real”? I think first we have to define what “indistinguishable” means in this context. According to Slater and Sanchez-Vives, what distinguishes a virtual reality from an actual reality, is one's personal ability to distinguish the two. They state that because “there must always be an element of VR that does not conform with reality”, in order for a virtual reality to become “real”, a participant “would have to not remember going into a VR system”. Thus according to Slater and Sanchez-Vives, what distinguishes VR is ultimately one's subjective memory. memory is something very variable subjective and to others quite intangible and misunderstood. So it is fickle memory and recognition that forms the boundary between the ability to distinguish between the real and virtual, and thus the boundary of an ethical experiment conducted in VR based on the participants knowledge that things are ultimately not real. How then can we possibly establish generalized ethical standards around memory? For one person 6 hours in a hypothetically hyper realistic VR experiment might be enough to make them almost completely forget about the “real” reality. For someone else it might be different. As the technology improves the line becomes increasingly easy to be blurred, we might be able to stay immersed in VR for several days at a time. If what makes VR ethically special is the ability to distinguish it from reality, then what happens as that line is slowly being erased?
I would argue simply that if we can not distinguish it from reality, then it becomes our reality. If it becomes our reality, then ethical standards from our “previous” reality would once more apply. otherwise, no ethical standards would be present. This is the paradox, that in seeking a hyper realistic simulation of our world, VR is once more paradoxically restrained by it, and its ethical limitations. It is only in the gray zone in between these worlds where we possess the knowledge that we are in between denoted by it being “unrealistic” that we can finally be free from other ethical restraints, if only for a time. Thus many of the “flaws” of VR are in fact its benefits that come from the line it straddles between conscious recognition and the free impossible.
Despite the natural temptation of many scientists, VR will not free us of every traditional ethical restraint placed on experiments nor enable us to resolve every unanswered question by constructing “simulated words”. VR no doubt grants us new methods of understanding our own reality, but like any technology it should be assessed as a marginal improvement among a chain of other discoveries that together represent the march of scientific progress. No technology as in the case of VR, has ever been a miracle technology and no technology justifies discarding our ethics in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. With this in mind we should set limits and expectations for the technology when it comes to experiments and simulations that do not violate or at least adapt existing ethical standards. We should remember Frankenstein's quest for total knowledge and control, and his consequent total loss of humanity. VR is no exception to this just because it imagines a virtual world. But we should also recognize that the beauty and scientific promise of VR comes not from its ability to recreate a hyper realistic version of our current reality, but in its ability to straddle between our own reality and the impossible. It is in this state of paradox and transition between two worlds with simultaneous knowledge of each that offers truly remarkable possibilities to us. Where, while remaining ethical we can step into a twilight zone for a time and synthesize new meaning to bring back to our own reality.
Works Cited:
Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing Our Lives with Immersive Virtual Reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
Chalmers, D. J. (2022). Reality+: Virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy. Penguin UK. https://consc.net/reality+/excerpt.pdf
Image Credit:
Headline Image
Image 1
