If new technologies will soon erase the boundaries between reality and imagination, what ethical questions should we ask ourselves?
Imagine that there is life after death. There is only one condition: in this life you will not be able to experience anything new. You will have to be content with a set of those subjective experiences that you managed to receive before you passed away. No hell and heaven: you will live in the reality that you yourself created - in the reality of your own experience. Would you agree to such an experiment?
If you think about it, all our life we do nothing but accumulate subjective experiences. Some of them we consider valuable and significant, others - worthless or even unpleasant. But how do we assess the significance and value of each of these experiences? Are there criteria with which we could go into our future life?
A still from the "San Junipero" series, the "Black Mirror" series.
Repeat good and repeat again
Several years ago, philosophers Thomas Metzinger and David Bassler of the University of Mainz tried to find an answer to this question and conducted a small experiment. They configured the SMS server to send 10 messages a day to the participants in the experiment at a randomly selected time. Immediately after receiving the signal, the participants - most of whom were students - had to decide whether they would like to take a previous conscious experience into a hypothetical future life. The results were not very encouraging: it turned out that life is on average 69% not worth repeating. When scientists asked if participants would like to relive a previous moment in this life, they refused such an opportunity already in 72% of cases.
It turned out that, on average, life is not worth living.
Promotional video:
Of course, one could argue that this pessimistic observation only applies to students at the University of Mainz. But is it really so? If we ignore our worldview concepts, long-term life plans and ethical ideas, then only a few moments of experience will remain - many of which will turn out to be moments of boredom, irritation, or empty indifference. It is quite natural that few people will voluntarily agree to experience them again.
Friedrich Nietzsche understood this very well many years before the described experiment. In 1881, when he was walking near the Swiss village of Sils Maria, he was struck by an idea that caused him both delight and intense horror (some recalled that he spoke about it exclusively in whispers). It was the idea of the eternal return of the same.
Imagine that every minute of your life will repeat itself over and over again, forever and ever. You will read this text again, the same images and thoughts will pass before you again, you will again experience what you have to experience in a day - everything, down to the smallest detail. Sounds creepy, doesn't it?
Stills from the clip "Karma Police" by Radiohead.
Nietzsche himself believed that this idea does not devalue life, but gives it the highest value. Eternal return could become the most important ethical principle when belief in afterlife retribution, fair divine judgment and any "metaphysical Disneyland" dried up. What will you do if you have to do the same countless times? It is unlikely that you will deceive and hypocrite someone, you are unlikely to commit meanness. That is why Nietzsche believed that the idea of eternal recurrence could completely transform a person.
Despite the fact that our life consists of separate moments, we always see them in the context of the whole. Yes, I'm bored at work now, but I'm looking forward to a promotion or new interesting projects. Yes, writing a dissertation is not very exciting, but I will learn a lot of new things and will contribute to the general collection of knowledge. Life in general is much more important than my momentary satisfaction. Even those 69% of the moments that you want to reject at first can find their rightful place in it. In academic parlance, this is called "narrative unity of the personality."
By telling stories, we give meaning to even our smallest experiences.
Thomas Metzinger suggests that beyond traditional ethics, we increasingly need an ethics of consciousness. If in traditional ethics we ask: "What deed is good?", Now we should also ask: "What state of consciousness is good?" You need to think not only about the value of actions, but also about the value of experiences. It is more than likely that in the future each of us will have the opportunity to artificially simulate certain states of consciousness - for example, using magnetic stimulation of the brain, neuroimplants, psychopharmacology or virtual reality. What are we going to do with this new and unexpected power?
In 1974, the philosopher Robert Nozick proposed the following thought experiment. Imagine being hooked up to a "sensation machine" that keeps you in a state of unclouded happiness. According to his observations, most people will refuse such an offer. We are arranged so that happiness alone is not enough for us - we want this happiness to be justified. We want to earn it. When Nozick wrote his book, such a machine existed exclusively in his imagination. Now this idea is not far from real implementation.
This is how our future possible immortality looks like (frame from the San Junipero series of the Black Mirror TV series).
Questions for the ethics of the future
Already today, with the help of stimulation of certain areas of the brain, it is possible to induce in a person joy, anger, sexual arousal, as well as the experience of leaving the body or experiencing unity with the world. Artificial body alteration - for example, with the help of plastic surgery - is now banned in few places. At the same time, altered states of consciousness, which can be entered under the influence of certain chemicals, are actually prohibited by law. On what basis do we decide to ban? Do we have the right to deny a person access to certain subjective states, if it does not harm him or others?
Many more questions can be asked in the same spirit. Futurists today argue a lot about the possibility of "digital immortality". Is it possible to preserve the identity of a person after his death on more durable digital media - for example, through a complete reconstruction of a map of his brain? This is a very controversial hypothesis, but let's imagine for a moment that this is possible. Will the digital personality be able to receive new experiences, or will it be captured by Nietzsche's "return of the same"? And if we can artificially edit our memories, which ones will we agree to keep?
The same questions apply to virtual reality. In the "USS Callister" series of the "Black Mirror" series, programmer Robert Daly creates an artificial world by placing his work colleagues there, who somehow did not please him. In real life, he is neglected, but here he is a real god. The people who ended up on his ship are digital copies of themselves, but they really suffer from his antics. Each sensation for them does not become less real from the fact that it consists of program code. Here are the questions we should ask ourselves: can we treat a virtual person as we would a real person? Isn't biological chauvinism the next kind of chauvinism we need to overcome?
The place of the white man in the virtual universe (still from the USS Callister series of the Black Mirror series).
All these questions must be addressed in the ethics of consciousness - a discipline that we have yet to create. In his significant and controversial work “Tunnel of the ego. The Science of the Brain and the Myth of Self”Thomas Metzinger offers three main criteria that should be followed in the search for and selection of certain subjective states.
- Reducing suffering. A “good” state of consciousness should help to reduce suffering - not only for people, but also for all beings who are capable of suffering. For example, if the state of alcoholic intoxication increases the general suffering, it should be abandoned.
- Self-knowledge. It should foster the growth of new knowledge and include an insight component. A “good” state of consciousness cannot be reduced to a repetition of what has already been experienced. This criterion also includes the acquisition of new abilities and skills.
- Increased mental autonomy. A “good” state of consciousness should increase our ability to self-regulate. If we can control our mental state, then our ability to search for valuable experiences in the future increases.
This is not about legislative measures, but about personal choice. External and objective criteria cannot be used to assess what we experience from the inside. Therefore, the same action in one situation may be ethically justified, and in another - unacceptable.
These criteria are imperfect, but they can at least give a start for future discussion. If we ask ourselves what states of consciousness we should cultivate, it can change the world no less than all technological revolutions.
Oleg Matfatov. Word writer and kitchen anthropologist. I write about culture, neuroscience, the relationship between man and technology and try to see the unexpected in everyday life