Augmented reality is upending the interface between physical
reality and human desire to shape our universe
The Oracle has spoken. His vision will soon become your
personal gadget. In the latest F8 annual global developer conference last
month, the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, announced his vision of new
technologies. He wants to change our lives by changing the way we perceive,
engage and experience the real world around us. He wants to create augmented
reality to spice up the mundane reality of our everyday world such as using an
app to fill a cereal bowl with images of tiny swimming sharks.
Augmented reality is like this. It begins with
dissatisfaction with the way the world appears before us. It panders to the
worst of our human desires when it creates a world which is special to each one
of us as if the world should be amenable to our desires rather than the other
way around.
A familiar lure
However, Mr. Zuckerberg’s vision is not really new. This
vision is presented as if it is something new and radical but there is much in
this new technological imagination that should remind us of old religious
imaginations.
Mr. Zuckerberg wants us to “think about how many of the
things around us don’t actually need to be physical”. His vision of a world
suspicious of materiality points to technology’s attempt to always go beyond
the real which is present in front of us. This view of technology is closely
related to the old religious imaginations, suggesting that the more digital,
technological we get, the more religious we will become. Is it only an accident
that religiosity and new-age gurus have increased in the digital age?
If this suggestion sounds absurd, consider the following.
Like religion, this new technology begins with a suspicion of the real physical
world, always searching for something more than the world outside us. Both
technology and religion do so by choosing the physical body as the fulcrum of
all problems of the physical. They use selective ideas of liberation and
freedom as an escape from the physical.
Both these domains raise fundamental questions about the
autonomy of human action: do we lose our autonomy to God in the same way that
we lose it to the digital gadgets? Both use magic and spectacle as a way to
attract us towards them. Both of them create a sense of protection and comfort,
and create forms of dependencies towards them. Finally, not to forget another
common strategy to promote both these domains: the question of cost.
Religion is cheap for all that it promises us. Zuckerberg
has learnt this lesson well: he sells his vision by claiming that a $500 TV can
be a $1 app in the future with the use of his technology. But what really is
the problem with the physical? Why is the idea of the physical a problem for
the digital technologists as also for the religious imagination?
Human and divine
There is a marked difference between the human world and the
world of the divine. A crucial aspect of this difference is defined by the
physicality of human beings. We are all embodied creatures, occupy space and
consume physical produce. Our body is the first model of the physical, and this
body is also the problem for many notions of liberation.
The body is a problem because the physical, by definition,
is always an entity that is constrained and bound by laws. The body is a
physical body in that it cannot do certain things because of its physicality.
Liberation is firstly a liberation from the physical world. Heaven is not
constrained by any of the factors that characterises the physical world. Gods
and angels fly when we cannot. They are not restrained by the constraints of
space and time. Gods are not like us. They are immaterial, omnipresent,
eternal, a spirit, a consciousness. God is the first example of a digital world
where there is no constraint due to physicality. That is also the reason why
the notion of God was deeply correlated with mathematics in the Western
tradition. Geometry was thought to embody the omnipresence, and arithmetic the
eternality, of God. Isaac Newton was among those who subscribed to this
fundamental relation between these two non-physical domains.
Augmented reality takes this one step further and is
actually the logical end to the imagination of science and technology. Science
describes the world in its own way, but the aim of science does not lie in a
mere description.
The fundamental aim of science is to use this description
and do something to the world which it describes. Science is as much about
using the knowledge of nature in order to control and harness it. However,
there is a more important aim of science: to ultimately create nature.
For science, it is not enough to merely know how things are
or why they act the way they do, but it is more essential to know how to
recreate not just this world but ‘better’ ones. The ultimate aim of science is
to be God; cloning, Bt foods, artificial intelligence and augmented reality are
just the first faltering steps on this journey.
Religion and Mr. Zuckerberg have one more thing in common.
They depend on the fact that human individuals are perpetually unhappy with
themselves and their world. Religion offers solace through another world, a
world of the divine. Mr. Zuckerberg wants to create this world of the divine in
his digital toys. He wants to change the world rather than ask us to change our
individual selves.
The domain of Gods was different from that of the humans,
and so liberation meant leaving this place and going to the beyond. However,
augmented reality is not about this form of liberation. It wants to create a
heaven outside each of our doors, or at least outside each of our smartphones.
Not socially shared
Augmented reality is narcissistic and self-centred unlike
religion in general. Religions are always social. They arepractised socially
and are composed of social rituals. But this new technological make-believe
world which each one of us can create according to our desires and fantasies is
not socially shared. It insulates and creates an individual who can only end up
being socially delusional.
It is the digital world, ephemeral, unlocated, seemingly
free and floating, that beckons as the way out of the constraints of the human
world. This new technology mimics all that the old religion had to give in
order to create a delusion of a new religion. Like all religions, it too
forgets that the digital and the ephemeral are always based on a foundation of
the material, just like human life is always based on a foundation of loss and
death.
What Mr. Zuckerberg is showing us is only the glitz, and not
the wires and the black boxes that are behind it which make all this possible.
But eventually he is not responsible for what he creates. It is we, the
suffering, burdened physical humans who go to him for the satiation of our
desires. We are puppets in the hands of the digital masters and we have gone
beyond the point of even asking whether we know what we are doing or what we are
getting into. We are already in the land of the new religion.
Sundar Sarukkai is professor of philosophy at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
Sundar Sarukkai is professor of philosophy at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
No comments:
Post a Comment