Using the virtual reality of the movie The Matrix as a backdrop, discuss why we choose virtual worlds over reality. If sensation and perception are interpreted the same in the brain, it is argued that there is no intrinsic difference between the real and the virtual, and that we need not choose the real just because it is ‘real’.
Imagine the following situation: everything you know is a virtual world. In reality, your body is unconscious in a machine-made incubator, where programs electronically stimulate your brain to perceive virtual events as real. The reality of your body is in total ruins, and the machines are endlessly hunting down and killing awakened humans. If you are given the opportunity to escape the virtual reality and wake up in the real world, what will you choose?
This is the setting of the movie The Matrix. Machines grow humans in incubators to use them as an energy source and create a program called the Matrix to trap their consciousness inside. The resistance tries to access this program to wake people up to the truth and fight the machines. If the resistance approached me and offered me the chance to leave the virtual world, I would say that I would stay.
First, we need to define the virtual world we’re talking about in this article. Like in the movie The Matrix, these virtual worlds have been created with such sophistication that they are indistinguishable from reality. All senses are perfectly reproduced, and once people enter it, they forget that it’s virtual and accept it as real. There are no resources or technical problems to maintain this virtual reality system, and once you choose it, you can never go back to the real world. Also, reality is set up to be very hopeless and the virtual world is set up to be a much better place to live.
There are three main reasons why I want to stay in the virtual world. First, because reality is hopeless. Second, if you don’t realize you’re in a virtual world, you won’t be dissatisfied. Third, we need to consider the question: is the real thing more valuable than the fake? People believe that something is more valuable than something fake just because it is ‘real’. But I don’t think this is a valid belief.
First, think about the reality of the movie: humans are hiding deep underground from the machines, wearing rags and living in ghetto-like conditions. The only food they have is bland porridge that provides nutrition. Many of the basic rights and conveniences we enjoy today will be gone. The delicious food you enjoy now, the comfortable clothes you wear, the warm bed you sleep in, all of these things would have to be given up. In the movie, the traitorous Cypher can’t give up the pleasures of the virtual world, so he betrays his team and kills them.
Next, if you don’t recognize that the world you live in is virtual, you have no reason to be unhappy with it. When you choose a virtual world, you forget that it’s virtual. Even if you chose a virtual world because you like it, it might bother you that it’s not “real”. But if you don’t know that, it won’t matter at all.
This begs the question: why does it bother me that it’s not real? This question is the biggest reason why I argue that there is no reason to stay in reality. Let’s think about it differently. Given a virtual world and the real world, the real world is hopeless and the virtual world is much more livable. Weighing the pros and cons of each, you would choose the world that gives you more value as an individual. Now, suppose we remove all factors and assume that all conditions in the virtual world and the real world are the same. If the environment, the way of life, etc. are all the same, the only difference is “real” and “virtual.” What choice would you make?
Most people would probably choose reality if the conditions were the same. This is because we have already decided that the real is more valuable than the virtual. But why is this so? Is there a good reason why the real is a better choice than the virtual? I don’t think so.
Even if everything in this world is not real, we perceive it as our brain perceives it. What’s the difference between how we perceive things in the real world and how we perceive them virtually? For example, imagine you are eating a white candy. Your eyes see the candy and your brain interprets it as white. When you put it in your mouth, your brain interprets it as hard, based on the signals sent by your sensory nerves, and your tongue tells you that it tastes sweet. But can we be sure that these are the intrinsic properties of the object? Can we be sure that your perception of white and sweetness is the same as someone else’s? After all, we only perceive what our brain interprets. So what’s the difference between sending signals directly to the brain and bypassing the body’s nerves? If you think about it, it doesn’t matter if the world you live in is real or virtual, it matters how your brain interprets it. If all the sensations in a virtual world are exactly the same as in the real world, there’s no difference between real and virtual from the brain’s perspective. If the brain, which governs all our perceptions, sees no difference, can we? If there is no difference between the two worlds, there is no way to say that one is more valuable than the other.
Some might argue that what the brain perceives is not necessarily true. But we accept facts based on what our brain perceives. For example, before Galileo came along, people believed that the Earth didn’t move, and that proposition was true because it made sense to people of that era. And when Galileo made his case, people considered him a heretic and put him on trial. But now, Galileo’s claims are accepted as true. This is because it has a scientific basis in the present day. In the end, a proposition becomes a “fact” when the majority of people agree with it. Does it become an absolute fact just because it’s in a textbook and scientists have proven it? I’m not sure. It’s just accepted as true now. Later, when new propositions are proven, the “facts” we believe will change again.
You might think it’s not appropriate to use Galileo as an example because he lived so long ago. Newton’s laws were absolute until Einstein came along. But when Einstein published his theory of relativity, which superseded Newton’s laws, the world was rocked once again. After all, even the facts we know now are only “facts” until new discoveries come along.
Another refutation is optical illusions. Two objects of the same size can appear different depending on the background. But we know it’s an optical illusion, so we don’t accept it as fact. We accept facts based on experience and knowledge, not just perception. As long as what we see, hear, and feel doesn’t conflict with our existing experience and knowledge, we accept it as true. And what we consider true now will remain true for us forever, unless it is refuted by new information.
In the movie Inception, there’s a scene where a group of people spend a long time in a dream under anesthesia to avoid waking up. When one character asks why they want to stay in the dream, the administrator says, “For these people, the reality we tell them is a dream, and the dream they are in is the real reality. Who are you to tell them they’re wrong?” In the end, ‘reality’ is defined by our perception. If what I perceive in a virtual world is all that I experience, then that is the true reality for me.
Therefore, I would stay in the virtual world if given the chance. Just because Neo chose the red pill in The Matrix doesn’t mean that everyone has to follow that choice. Even if it’s the “right” choice in some sense, I think it’s more valuable to stay in the virtual world.
