VR transports users into all kinds of different realities, some modeled on the real world, others completely invented. Though still in its infancy, the technology has become so sophisticated, it can trick the brain into treating the virtual experience as real and unmediated. So what is the most prudent way to employ this cutting edge technology going forward? Could VR help solve real world problems, like implicit bias or the climate crisis? And as the technology becomes more widely available, are there potential dangers we ought to be seriously thinking about? Josh and Ray strap on their goggles with Jeremy Bailenson, Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford, and author of Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do.
Part of our series The Human and the Machine.
Is virtual reality more than just an avenue for fun? Can it help us become more empathetic people? Ray believes that VR offers opportunities to experience things that would be too dangerous or impossible in the real world, which can help increase our capacity for empathy. Josh, however, is skeptical that virtual worlds have advantages over reality, and that such VR experiences designed to increase empathy only work for those already seeking them out.
The philosophers are joined by Jeremy Bailenson, Professor of Communication and Director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab at Stanford University. Jeremy discusses his lab’s work in providing experiences that would help people rethink their perspectives and increase empathy, possibly leading to long-term behavior change. He goes on to describe his class taught using VR as well as the importance of bringing in domain experts when using the technology to combat prejudice and racism. In response to Ray’s worry about social media companies monopolizing VR technology, Jeremy voices concerns about privacy, addiction, and the blurring of reality. Ultimately, he believes VR isn’t for everything.
In the last segment of the show, Ray, Josh, and Jeremy discuss the possibilities for full body VR technology and its application in sports medicine. They transition to the concept of augmented reality (AR), which has been used in creating AR companion animals and artistic overlays in film festivals. To conclude, Jeremy offers insights on the current social norms and stigma surrounding the use of VR and AR technology.
Roving Philosophical Report (Seek to 4:43) → Shereen Adel tries out an augmented reality experience designed to bring ocean science directly to the people and spark a concern for climate change.
Sixty-Second Philosopher (Seek to 45:03) → Ian Shoales explains why we need alternative realities over virtual realities.
Josh Landy
Can Virtual Reality solve real world problems?
Ray Briggs
Will it make us more empathetic?
Josh Landy
Could VR even help us tackle the climate crisis?
Comments (8)
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, October 8, 2021 -- 6:01 AM
I would submit that virtualI would submit that virtual reality may help us dream. Do we need help? I do not know. How things really are has been largely exploited. Actuality is pretty secure. Where did the notion of three dimensional printing originate? Someone must have dreamed that up,yes? Or was it hiding-in-plain-sight, behind a mathematical principle or schema? Not everyone is smitten by VR. That is not an issue. Robots are socially sterile but applications are expanding rapidly. Sorry, Virginia, but there are new things under the sun. We just have not seen them. Yet.
Tim Smith
Monday, November 1, 2021 -- 4:43 PM
One might ask – Why does theOne might ask – Why does the coffee taste so bad?
There is a severe injury to our world and lives in Virtual Reality.
Prudence may not be possible once the tech is out of the gift box. I think it is through judicious use of BlockChain (I will wait for the BC show in the AI series – which I assume is coming) and VR standards for content per use case.
Philosophers are sitting back, not reading the science and rubber-stamping the ethical issues here. Jeremy Bailenson does the same, where he constantly references his pursuit for funding and tenure. Tech has taken academic work to the market, Academics have let us down, and the buck falls to you, reader, to protect yourself, but it appears there is little initiative even to call this out.
Let me reference a previous PT show where Josh and Ken rubber-stamped David Eagleman’s extrasensory work.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/hacking-brain
The issue is highlighted at the 42:20 mark when Spencer calls in about being a Cow. His concerns are played down and dismissed, and Ken and Josh don’t probe further. Virtual reality takes Spencer’s question to the next level. Still, David Eagleman has severe philosophical and psychological issues to address (I will comment on that show as it rebroadcasts in January 2022.)
The concern with VR is ‘Presence.’ We are not familiar with this conscious change in our sense of Presence – much as we are confused with the concept of ‘Deep Fakes’ in still and motion images. Presence, however, goes much further than images, fake news, or lies. When technology creates virtual worlds, people retain the experience comparatively faster and more accurately. Presence is the deep idea and promise behind the Facebook (FB) re-name to ‘META.’ This, also, is Bailenson’s book in a nutshell, or bombshell (there have been many other authors – but Bailenson gives a great rundown of much of the history and issues.)
However, familiarity doesn’t fix the issue, as Eagleman proposes (he says something like -“Kids today are more sophisticated.” - that is a trope, and Eagleman is being too trusting and perhaps naive.) Kids today are more vulnerable than ever. I can’t tell you how often I have been to R-rated movies only to find parents with kids in tow. Netflix is an abomination of liberality. Kids can and do see content they shouldn’t. The internet is open to all, and it is taking a toll. Take that curmudgeonry to VR, and it is much worse.
But kids aren’t the only ones who need protection; all human beings need to have some signifier when running VR, AR, AI, and NeoSensory setups. Humans get confused too quickly and have emotional and identity issues that make them vulnerable to manipulation and harm.
An example might be an Airplane pilot hooked into a VR/NeoSensory workup of his stock portfolio getting worked up over a market downturn while in flight. The human mind has limited focus and subconscious emotional ups and downs that affect performance and quality of life.
Bailenson gives several empathetic, health, social and educational use cases for VR, which could solve several intractable problems if implemented in the right way. As Jeremy lays out in his book, the most common use case is for training, which is already running in corporate, athletic, and vocational settings. Even in these scenarios, it is incumbent on the VR media creator to communicate the VR scene as unreal in some, if not most, strategies.
There are situations where you want/prefer to run VR with no flags/warnings to users, treating mental illness like PTSD or ADHD. Those could run with a pristine sense of Presence as medically allowed. Running a VR ‘Grand Theft Auto’ with no signification of VR state to the user is unethical (even if desired by the users – which I understand it is.)
Someone needs to be the adult here. As a society, we haven’t done this. Philosophers need to be forthright in pointing this out.
How did the coffee get so bad?
The answer could be that Juan Valdez no longer picks each bean! Juan was a great philosopher of coffee and life. We need to be more like Juan. There was a time (1958 for Juan’s fictional birth year) when we applied human provenance as a sign of quality. Now we seem to leave questions to the market and big tech.
We need to be a bit more like Juan Valdez.
Tim Smith
Friday, December 10, 2021 -- 3:03 PM
This show went beyondThis show went beyond Bailenson's book and had helpful mnemonics, learning, and ideas to guide thinking about virtual reality (VR); DICE – dangerous, impossible, counter-productive, or expensive – as a guide for the use of VR is one, Fundamental attribution error (FAE), Proteus effect, and reality blurring are others. All philosophers should understand these concepts and how they affect our revised sense of reality with VR.
I'm impressed with Bailenson's depth and perspective, as well as his skepticism and concern for its misuse. The idea of signing over our local computer vision and biometrics to Facebook/Meta, Tik-Tok, or Niantic raises more than a few concerns given the trajectory of political and economic disparities in our "real" reality and how Meta and Google played such significant roles in manipulating the elections in 2012/16/20.
It is cool to play with tech; however, I don't see much philosophizing about VR here. Jeremy says adverse effects need further research and points to some work on that front. The push-come-to-shove reality of the negative effects are largely being ignored. We can't ask academics to protect society at large when they have to mentor students, gather funding and publish papers that are themselves funded by the industrial and government agencies that are pell-mell bought into VR as a tool for commercial and government use.
From a philosophical perspective, VR messes with the human perception of reality. Traditionally philosophers have questioned the very existence of reality. Now that we are disaffecting our senses from what truth we questioned, it somewhat backseats those concerns on our thought. I'm concerned we are slipping from the biological hold reality had to an artificial reality that may serve/fund AI research more than preserve human wellness.
Hopefully there is a blog on this show. I think this deserves thought. Jeremy has educated here, now it is time for us to think hard about what we are doing, virtually or not.
Harold G. Neuman
Sunday, January 9, 2022 -- 6:06 AM
Possibly, VR is still too newPossibly, VR is still too new for practical assessment. It might, sometime, be useful in treatment of brain trauma. I imagine neuroscience is looking at this by now. If not, or if it has is not within my sphere of comprehension. My brother's old friend and classmate, Allan Combs, may have views on the potentials of VR. One would have to ask him...
Harold G. Neuman
Saturday, January 15, 2022 -- 1:38 PM
Had another brain fart: whatHad another brain fart: what might the outcome (in a long view) be , should AI and VR merge? There are similarities suggesting (to me) these are not parallel, therefore, barring infinite divergence, they must ultimately cross paths---maybe already have. What? Am I crazy? Everyday! Pay attention, neuroscience. Especially you, Professor Combs.
Harold G. Neuman
Saturday, February 19, 2022 -- 9:37 AM
Alright. I will play ChickenAlright. I will play Chicken Little for a few. Suppose VR has already been re-configured to re-program people. A sort of audio-visual brainwashing, if one will. If it has been done, there is no supposition to be made. The notion, then practice, of re-programming has been with us for decades(?) Most of us can recall efforts to de-program cult followers and such like remediative efforts. Intuiting this possibility for VR is not far out. It may (might?) be a kinder, gentler means of changing peoples' minds. Applications could be either altruistic or nefarious. Or somewhere in between. What can virtual reality actually do? This thought experiment was brought to you by Chicken Little, Inc. If you have read this, you have also seen TS' comments above. Is this worth philosophy? This blog has always been more than philosophy, seems to me. That is not my call, nor need it be. Changing my mind IS my call---and, I would rather do that myself.
Harold G. Neuman
Sunday, February 20, 2022 -- 5:33 AM
Follow-up Inquiry:Follow-up Inquiry:
Are there any neuroscience and./or behavioral science practitioners who could throw light on this subject, without unduly giving away extant projects /research? They would seem to be most likely to be cognizant of such matters...just asking.
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, February 24, 2022 -- 7:30 AM
Going back to an earlyGoing back to an early comment I made (10/08/2021), and the one above, I have found that neuroscience is, indeed, interested in consciousness. A risiing star has claimed consciousness is a hallucination. Indeed, there were a lot of hallucinations popping up in the 60s and 70s. Some were saying those expanded consciousness. So, maybe, VR can do the same? It is, after all, hallucination, is it not? I got there, a time or two. It was not via LSD. Just good old fashioned opiated black African hashish...
So, old notions can resurface. Showing us that new ones are not so new...