In this episode, David discusses the difference between experiencing life through the various filters humans apply by default, and knowing what objective reality is really like.
Pragmatic ethics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics
Red pill and blue pill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
The Matrix film:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix
Experience machine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
Direct and indirect realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
In this episode, David discusses the difference between experiencing life through the various filters humans apply by default, and knowing what objective reality is really like.
Pragmatic ethics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics
Red pill and blue pill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
The Matrix film:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix
Experience machine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
Direct and indirect realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
Red Pill or Blue Pill
Welcome to the Reasoned Intuitions podcast. My name is David Tonner, and I discuss personal ideas on moral issues in modern society and try to come up with improved ways of thinking and behaving, in the hopes of becoming a better person and causing the least amount of harm. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that I am not an expert in either philosophy, psychology, or anything else, for that matter.
My opinions and positions are provisional and open to change with new information or an improved understanding of the issues I discuss. My intent is not to provide definitive rules or to tell anyone how they should live their life. I merely want to share my ideas and insights, in the hopes that they can be inspirational or in some way helpful.
I employ pragmatic ethics and try to reason from as broad and objective a perspective as possible. Some of my basic assumptions are that unchosen suffering is bad, and we should strive to minimize it. Joy is the most pleasurable sensation, and thus we should strive to maximize it. Empathy is universal, with some exceptions, and it should be the starting point of any good ethical system.
Hello, and welcome to another episode of Reasoned Intuitions. The title of today's episode is Red Pill or Blue Pill. I'm sure most people get the reference, but for those who are unfamiliar, it comes from a scene in the 1999 film The Matrix, which apparently, some people haven’t seen!
Wikipedia defines “Red pill and blue pill” as a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking a red pill, or remaining in contented ignorance with a blue pill. In the film, humanity is trapped inside a simulated reality referred to as “the matrix”, while intelligent machines use people's bodies as energy sources in a world that is dystopian and bleak.
The lead character, Neo, played by Keanu Reeves, is asked to choose between the red and the blue pill by another character, Morpheus, portrayed by Laurence Fishburne, a leader in the rebellion against the intelligent machines.
The choice given to Neo is to either continue living inside the simulated reality or to discover what the world is truly like. Neo ultimately chooses the red pill, of course, because that's what heroes are supposed to do, right?
While not necessarily presented this way in the movie, the duality is an interesting philosophical question to ponder. It's also somewhat of a trope in popular culture, and I have a feeling that most people throw it about in a rather casual manner. In an informal setting, when given the hypothetical choice, most people select the red pill, by which they signal their desire to know the truth over a superficial preference for the comforts of a soothing illusion.
In this episode, I'm going to argue that in reality, most people would and should choose the blue pill.
So, why is it that when asked, most people select the red pill?
The reason seems to be partly because in a realistic context, the consequences of making that choice are banal and therefore, not only does it seem wise to wish to know the truth, but it also signals to others that you possess the mental fortitude to deal with the truth, such as it is.
It's also a fact that humans value truth. Certainly, we prefer honesty and truth to deception and lies, and most of us would prefer to understand the circumstances of our surroundings rather than living under false beliefs or assumptions. Deception and illusion can be detrimental, and while the truth isn't always desirable, it carries with it an aura of purity. As they say, the truth will set you free, right?
When thought about in a superficial sense, choosing to learn the truth seems to be the rational and virtuous choice. The question is seldom asked with the appropriate depth of philosophical implications, however, and neither does it ever entail the real-world consequences of the deeper question.
The options usually involve learning a difficult truth versus continuing in blissful ignorance, but still obviously within the only reality we, as humans, are capable of experiencing. The real conundrum, in my opinion, in the truly philosophical distinction between objective and subjective reality, is not only much more difficult to conceive of, but its implications are far more drastic and life-changing. Personally, I also think that the choice between subjective and objective reality is much more interesting.
Allow me to clarify what I mean by subjective versus objective reality: objectivity is truth or reality, independent of human observation or interpretation; essentially what exists, whether or not humans are there to observe and interpret it.
If a bear farts in the forest, and there is no audio receptor, such as a human ear, to capture the sound wave, then there is only the sound wave, no sound—there’s probably no smell, either. Subjective reality, on the other hand, is reality filtered through the experience of a human being, which includes emotions, feelings, biases, et cetera.
Okay, so what about the blue pill? How does the experience of taking the blue pill manifest itself?
Humans have evolved in specific ways that allow us to navigate the world in an optimal manner for our propagation and thriving. Our sensory perception and mental workings are rife with illusions that portray the physical reality of our surroundings in such a manner that optimizes specific functions that we perform.
The objective physical reality of our surroundings doesn't have to match the one we perceive, as this is not optimal. If humans were suddenly stripped of all these illusions, both sensory and psychological, on an individual and group basis, we would not be adapted to either comprehend or deal with reality.
Some examples of sensory illusions include colour and sound, neither of which exist objectively on a physical level, where they are manifested as light waves and sound waves. Imagine observing a world where, instead of seeing colours and hearing sounds, you were simply aware of light waves and sound waves, without any experience attached to them.
Even the thought itself is difficult to conceive, at least to me. Examples of mental illusions include beliefs in gods or similar higher forces, the idea of free will, meaning and purpose, inherent value, et cetera.
The more ingrained a belief or illusion, or perhaps the more it is intertwined with a person's sense of identity, the more difficult it is to let go, but also the harder it then becomes to cope in a functional manner with a reality devoid of this illusion. Thus, for an atheist, it is less of a challenge to adapt to the loss of other, similar illusions, whereas for someone steeped in various cultural and spiritual beliefs, the loss of each one is painful; the loss of all at once can be debilitating.
So, what would it look like for someone to take the red pill? In theory, this would mean the complete absence of all illusions, both sensory and psychological: no more colours, flavours smells, sounds, or any physical sensations at all.
It also means that any notions of faith, identity, belonging, volition, loyalty, love, purpose, dignity, et cetera, all would be gone. Why would they not continue to exist?
All these traits are nothing more than illusions, figments of the human mind that have conferred adaptive benefits to us as intelligent organisms and allowed us to thrive within our ecosystems. None of the concepts mentioned above exist outside the scope of the human mind, as far as we can ascertain. They seem to be entirely anthropogenic phenomena that emerge from a level of consciousness specific to Homo Sapiens.
There is certainly no reason to believe that anything like faith love, truth, or good and evil exist in the universe, outside of the context of intelligent life.
So, here are the options, as I would present them: choose the blue pill and continue to experience the world through the various subjective human filters and biases; essentially, life as you currently know it. Choose the red pill and be deprived of all neurochemically generated illusions that your senses present. Devoid of all subjective lenses and other evolutionary traits created by the human mind in order to optimize survival within our environment, but which don't necessarily represent objective reality.
So, is it possible to reconcile these two options, neither of which seems very appealing? Choosing the blue pill just seems weak, a cop-out of sorts, a soothing balm. In the casual context, in which the choice is usually presented, the blue pill is seen as less appealing than the red pill, even though it permits the continuation of a pleasing illusion. The red pill of course, is not appealing either, since it signifies a harsh truth. In the deeper philosophical context, neither choice appears intuitively right, since one is bleak and depressing, and the other is an illusion. My position is that, if presented with this choice, most people would do well to select the blue pill, as choosing the red pill, or having the capability to perceive objective reality in its full scope, basically strips us of our innocence, our naivete, but also of anything that gives us a sense of being special to each other and in general. At the core of it, we are no different from other animals or even bacteria; our sole purpose is to survive long enough to procreate. In an existential sense, what does that leave us with? How does a person devoid of meaning or purpose maintain their sanity and go on existing in the world?
So, at this point, you may be wondering, if I'm able to formulate all this in my mind, and to present it to my audience in a coherent manner, does that not contradict what I'm saying? If I am able to see past the illusions created by the human mind in order to trick me into being better at procreating—by the way, I don't even have children, so how's that for being an evolutionary failure?—why am I able to go on living in a sane manner?—and I do assure you that I still have my wits about me. The answer is that I haven't actually taken the red pill; I'm not saying that to be flippant, by the way.
What I mean is that, on a conceptual level, I can fathom what I would be deprived of if I could fully experience objective reality. Additionally, there are several common illusions held by most people that I do not share, such as faith in a creator, belief in agency, et cetera.
Still, I continue to see colour, to smell the wonderful aroma of coffee, to hear beautiful music; my sensory illusions persist. And to be honest, most of my mental illusions are still present as well. As an example, even though I don't believe in free will, every action I perform intuitively feels like it's freely generated by some choice-making faculty that resides in my mind.
I am not immune to other biases either, such as thinking that things happen for a reason when I experience a positive turn of events. The difference that I'm illustrating therefore, is between knowing something intellectually and experiencing it in its pure state, which none of us can do because of the structure of our minds. What this means is that there's never any risk of someone taking the red pill, meaning, there's no reason to think that humans will ever be able to perceive objective reality in its fullness, and again, I really don't think we should desire that option.
Okay, so at this point, you might be wondering, what about critical thinking? It seems you're saying that it's okay to prefer living under a blanket of illusions rather than understanding reality. What gives? I think both those things are true, and it's possible to reconcile them. It's neither optimal for people to live without any sense of meaning, nor to operate under a slew of biases, completely unchecked. The optimal balance is somewhere in the middle, as it tends to be.
Ideally, we could all be conceptually aware of at least those illusions that cause us and others harm, but is there really an imperative to know more than we need to know in order to lead contented lives and to be kind to each other? At the end of the day, it doesn't benefit most of us to understand the fundamental substructure of physical reality, just as it doesn't help most people to know the atomic components that give rise to electricity, how the propagation of electromagnetic waves allows the internet to function, or even what physical forces take place inside a toaster oven. What matters is that, what comes out is a piece of burned br… I mean, delicious toast, and in the same way, what matters is that humans go on living their lives with their sanity and sense of meaning intact, and that we find ways to be good to each other, to other living organisms, as well as to our entire ecosystem.
To close, here's a thought experiment for you:
It's called the experience machine, and it was created by the philosopher Robert Nozick in 1974. Let me present a slightly modified version:
Imagine a machine that simulates an ideal life, where you are happy, content, and have anything you desire. This isn't quite like the Matrix by the way, or the life, you know presently, because it's perfect. When you are plugged into the machine, you are not aware that what you are experiencing is not real in an objective sense. It appears genuine in every possible way, and there is no way for you to know otherwise. During a routine maintenance reboot, you are unplugged and asked if you would like to return to your simulated experience or if you would like to try living in the so-called “real world”, of which you know nothing, but which presumably couldn't be any more perfect than the life you've experienced until now, except for the fact that, well, it's quote unquote “real”. What would you choose, and why?
Thanks again for listening.