₦airaland Forum

Nozick asks us to imagine a machine that could give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences we could want. Psychologists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those he would have apart from the machine. He then asks, if given the choice, would we prefer the machine to real life?

Nozick also believes that if pleasure were the only intrinsic value, people would have an overriding reason to be hooked up to an "experience machine," which would produce favorable sensations.

[...]
The argument is along these lines:

P1: If experiencing as much pleasure as we can is all that matters to us, then if we will experience more pleasure by doing x than by doing y, we have no reason not to do x rather than y.
P2: We will experience more pleasure if we plug into the experience machine than if we do not plug into the experience machine.
C1: If all that matters to us is that we experience as much pleasure as we can then we have no reason not to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)
P3: We have reason not to plug into the experience machine.
C2: Experiencing as much pleasure as we can is not all that matters to us.

JessicaRabbit:
In the absence of a philosophy section, I decided this topic wouldn't be entirely out of place in the romance section. But at any rate, please bear with me.

The first time I came across this concept was about 3 years ago on another forum. Apparently, it's a well known philosophical thought experiment, aimed at demonstrating that hedonism is false. For those who don't know, hedonism is basically the idea that pleasure is the only good thing.

This experiment was thought-up by the philosopher Robert Nozick as a criticism of hedonism. The experiment goes like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

So what are your thoughts on the experience machine? And the argument for it? Would you plug in? Would you want your friends and family members to plug in?

AlbertNewton:
C1: If all that matters to us is that we experience as much pleasure as we can then we have no reason not to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)

This conclusion is not quite right. Plugging into the experience machine would mean that we are going to give up the old ways of getting pleasure which we are already used to (eating, fücking, playing with friends, achieving goals etc). The thought of losing these pleasures may cause us some pain, a feeling which of course we always want to avoid. Furthermore, we may have genuine misgivings about plugging into the experience machine because we CANNOT be completely certain this will bring better pleasures than what we are used to. So there are reasonable reasons not to want to plug to the machine even if all that matters to us is to experience more pleasure.
A better conclusion should be that if you experience better or more pleasures upon being plugged to the experience machine than is possible in real life, then you should have no reason to want to be unplugged.

JessicaRabbit:
This is an impressive rejoinder. Well done. As a matter of fact, yes, you are correct that the conclusion C1 oversimplifies the complexities of human experience and the potential drawbacks of relying solely on the experience machine for pleasure. Your points about the potential pain of giving up familiar sources of pleasure and the uncertainty of the machine's superiority are well-taken. Nevertheless, I'd argue that your revised conclusion still misses the deeper concerns that Nozick's thought experiment intends to highlight. The experience machine scenario is meant to probe our values and what ultimately matters to us, beyond mere pleasure. While your revised conclusion acknowledges some practical considerations, I'm not sure it fully addresses the existential and philosophical questions at play.

For instance, would we still be content to lead a life of pure simulation, devoid of genuine human connections, personal growth, and meaningful experiences? Would we sacrifice our autonomy, creativity, and capacity for self-improvement for the sake of pleasure alone? These concerns go beyond mere pleasure and speak to the essence of human existence. Even if the experience machine could guarantee superior pleasures, would that be enough to justify sacrificing the richness and depth of human experience? Or would we still have reason to opt out, precisely because our values and aspirations extend beyond mere pleasure?

AlbertNewton:
I actually didn't attempt to address the existential questions the thought experiment poses yet. My reply was solely to point out what I felt was wrong with conclusion C1 and then offer what I think is a better premise upon which we can base our discussion on the thought experiment.

I'm afraid that the answer to the questions you have directly raised here might be YES for a lot of people. As it turns out, the hypothetical pleasure machine in the thought experiment actually already exists in real life in some lesser, inferior forms. Drugs, pornography and masturbation, as well as social media addictions are some forms of this pleasure machine in my opinion. Based on what we can observe about how a lot of people are responding to these lesser sources of pleasure (lesser compared to the pleasure machine), it's easy to imagine that the vast majority of them wouldn't want to unplug from the ultimate pleasure-giving machine once they got plugged.
I think the issue is that the lofty human aspirations you have highlighted here are not so valuable to every human. Perhaps it takes attaining a certain level of awareness or some sort of "intellectual state" to be capable of seeing the richness of life beyond ordinary pleasures. The residual animal instinct in many people, which gives no fück about personal growth and meaningful experiences, still seems to be very potent .

JessicaRabbit:
In the absence of a philosophy section, I decided this topic wouldn't be entirely out of place in the romance section. But at any rate, please bear with me.

The first time I came across this concept was about 3 years ago on another forum. Apparently, it's a well known philosophical thought experiment, aimed at demonstrating that hedonism is false. For those who don't know, hedonism is basically the idea that pleasure is the only good thing.

This experiment was thought-up by the philosopher Robert Nozick as a criticism of hedonism. The experiment goes like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

So what are your thoughts on the experience machine? And the argument for it? Would you plug in? Would you want your friends and family members to plug in?

JessicaRabbit:
In the absence of a philosophy section, I decided this topic wouldn't be entirely out of place in the romance section. But at any rate, please bear with me.

The first time I came across this concept was about 3 years ago on another forum. Apparently, it's a well known philosophical thought experiment, aimed at demonstrating that hedonism is false. For those who don't know, hedonism is basically the idea that pleasure is the only good thing.

This experiment was thought-up by the philosopher Robert Nozick as a criticism of hedonism. The experiment goes like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

So what are your thoughts on the experience machine? And the argument for it? Would you plug in? Would you want your friends and family members to plug in?