If you were given the opportunity to plan out your life in a way that would maximize the amount of pleasure in it, would you take it? This question is key to Robert Nozick’s thought experiment which attempts to show that humans are not hedonists. A hedonist is a person who lives and behaves in a way such that they can experience the most pleasure out of life as possible, according to the belief that the pursuit of pleasure it the most important thing in life. Nozick’s thought experiment attempts to refute hedonism through a hypothetical question involving what Nozick likes to call the “experience machine”. This imaginary machine would have the ability to simulate any sort of experiences on a subject and the subject of the experiment would …show more content…
First, we want to do certain things and not just have the experience of having done them. Secondly, plugging in would be a form of suicide and thirdly we are limited to human-created reality. Nozick’s first piece of reasoning which says that we want do certain things and not just experience them is sort of questionable. Based on the assumption that all experiences can be replicated by the machine and that we have no knowledge of our previous lives wouldn’t it make no difference whether or not we actually did these things or not? Since experiences are produced through chemical changes in the brain, it would theoretically have the exact same feeling if an experience really happened or not. People may argue that the fact that these experiences are really happening is crucial in giving it meaning or significance. For example, if someone were to pass away, they would likely want to be remembered or even have an impact on the world for what they have done over the course of their lives. If they were in a simulated environment these actions would simply be of no significance. This is where the idea of subjective reality impels me to believe that is completely unknowable whether or not we are not know in a simulation. This is an important fact because if you chose to plug in, once in the simulation, you would have no way of every finding out that you were in a simulation or not. Since there would be know way …show more content…
If I were given the opportunity to plug-in to the machine I would probably take it. As I mentioned earlier, based on the assumption that we will never know whether our life is a simulation and that the experiences using the “experiment machine” will feel exactly the same, it can be said that there would be no difference in the feeling, authenticity, and significance of our lives if we chose to use the machine or not. You can only gain pleasure out of using it. Although most people may have a different opinion on this topic than me, I believe that if they looked past the artificial nature of the machine, they would definitely use the machine. The instant rejection to Nozick’s hypothetical question which he seeks relies on the fact that life through the “experiment machine” is not authentic and that people want a life where there destiny is not already written. What if Nozick instead asked whether or not you would like to ensure pleasure in your life? Had he worded his question in a way that did not add conditions or an added dimension like this, there is no doubt in my mind that everyone would say yes to the question. By removing the inhibiting condition, the condition of surrendering yourself to a knowingly unreal life and losing your free will, the question becomes much less objectionable in nature. Everyone in life desires pleasure and due to the fact that people may have
Hedonism is a theory of morality. There are several popular philosophers who support hedonism; some of whom offer their own interpretation of the theory. This paper will focus on the Epicurean view. Epicurus, a Greek philosophers born in 341 B.C., generated a significant measure of controversy amongst laymen and philosophical circles in regards to his view of the good life. Philosophers whom teachings predate Epicurus’ tended to focus on the question of “How can human beings live a good, morally sound, life?” Epicurus ruffled feathers and ultimately expanded the scope of philosophy by asking “What makes people happy?”
In chapter 2, Shafer-Landau proceeds to list the theories that attempt to disprove hedonism by highlight the shortcomings in its logic and hedonism's replies to these objections. The Argument from Autonomy, is one of strongest objections to hedonism listed. Shafer-Landau states that for a theory to pose a serious threat to hedonism, it needs to challenge the idea that happiness is the only thing of intrinsic value (34). Chapter 2 discuses four strong objections that have the potential and support to disprove hedonism. The Argument from Autonomy provides an abundance of strong information to support its claims.
In this essay I am going to argue that Robert Nozick’s experience machine does show that hedonism is false. Firstly I am going to define what the experience machine thought experiment is, then I am going to define hedonism. Then I am going to show how Nozick’s argument does in fact show that hedonism is false, and that we consider things other than pleasure and pain when considering value. After that I am going to respond to some objections. Firstly the objection raised by Felipe de Brigard, who says that our initial reaction to the experience machine might just be cognitive bias. I will say that De Brigard actually adds weight to Nozick’s argument. Secondly I will respond to the objection that the reason people dislike the experience machine
As humans we are constantly in search of understanding the balance between what feels good and what is right. Humans try to take full advantage of experiencing pleasure to its fullest potential. Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest and only source of essential significance. If the notion of hedonism is truthful, happiness is directly correlated with pleasure. Robert Nozick presented the philosophical world with his though experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the existence and validity of hedonism. Nozick’s thought experiment poses the question of whether or not humans would plug into a machine which produces any desired experience. Nozick weakens the notion of hedonism through his thought experiment, claiming humans need more than just pleasure in their lives. Nozick discovers that humans would not hook up to this machine because they would not fully develop as a person and consider it a form of suicide.
In the 1930’s simulation, Hall’s consciousness was transferred into his 1930’s counterpart, John Ferguson. Within the 1930’s simulation, Hall was completely absorbed by a world that felt as real as his own. All of the inhabitants in the 1930’s simulation were completely unaware of the fact that their existence was a simulation. This relates to Descartes’s arguments about the various reasons of doubt. According to Descartes, we would not know if everything around us is not real because we may be in a dream or being tricked by an evil genius or scientist. In the case of The Thirteenth Floor, it is the latter. Furthermore, Descartes argues that if we are under the control of an evil genius, we are mistaken of our beliefs and do not have any knowledge other than the knowledge that we exist. The inhabitants of the 1930’s simulation were under the control of the scientists of the 1990’s simulation. Therefore, the inhabitants of the 1930’s simulation possessed no knowledge other than the knowledge that they existed. This of course, led Hall and his colleague Jason Whitney to the conclusion that their simulation was a success. Unfortunately, Hall and Whitney were completely oblivious to the fact that they
He made it so the person would not be able to know the difference between the machine and real life. I think that if she had a chance to plug into Nozicks’ experience machine that she would have still done it the same way all over again. She gained and experienced so much in a year and a half than she did in her whole life. She grew both stronger and intelligent. I also think she still would have plugged in the same risks because she got everything she wanted in such a short period of time. She enjoyed her life and found it very pleasurable. If she made it so that Billie were to miss the punch and not cause her to break her neck, she would not have had the same pleasurable experience with Frankie. Maggie gained experience through boxing. She deserved every ounce of her
Mill, in response to objections about pleasure, claims that there are some pleasures that are better than others. He states that the life of a reasoning, thinking person is superior to a human, rather than just the appetite of an animal.(513) In supporting this claim, he mentions how those who support a similar view have written before that the pleasures of the mind are superior than the body.(513) To support this idea, Mill mentions the idea of competent judges. For someone to be a competent judge be...
“Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities.”(Bostrom). Video games have come a long way through technology. So what is there to say we are not in one. “Musk and other like-minded folk are suggesting that we are entirely simulated beings. We could be nothing more than strings of information manipulated in some gigantic computer, like the characters in a video game.”(Ball). Think of some teenage boy holding a controller telling you what to do. Math also plays a key role in this theory. “The more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws.”(Moskowitz). Who knew a simple equation could make up our entire
Mill says “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.” (541) The pleasure that people choose over a different pleasure, event though they may undergo more discomfort to get it is the pleasure deemed higher. Moreover, Mill states that people will always prefer the pleasure with the highest appeal, “few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for promise of the fullest allowance of the beast’s pleasures” (541). Since the human already has a higher level of pleasure than that of the animal, the human will never choose to go down a level even if they were promised endless amounts of pleasure
If a machine passes the test, then it is clear that for many ordinary people it would be a sufficient reason to say that that is a thinking machine. And, in fact, since it is able to conversate with a human and to actually fool him and convince him that the machine is human, this would seem t...
I believe that it is all real in some way or the other the physical world is of course real, we feel pain, happiness, love how else we would feel those if it was not real. The spiritual world is real in a different way by that way we cannot see. Here is an example at my old house I would be home alone and every so often I would hear noises upstairs like foot steps to this day I could not tell you what the noise was.
Artificial Intelligence is a term not too widely used in today’s society. With today’s technology we haven’t found a way to enable someone to leave their physical body and let their mind survive within a computer. Could it be possible? Maybe someday, but for now it’s just in theory. The novel by William Gibson, Neuromancer, has touched greatly on the idea of artificial intelligence. He describes it as a world where many things are possible. By simply logging on the computer, it opens up a world we could never comprehend. The possibilities are endless in the world of William Gibson.
SIMULATION- In modelling and simulation, simulation is the operation of a computer model which predicts how a system will behave in a set of conditions. It is used in the analysis of the performance of a system.
In this machine you are disconnected from the external world but you are still virtually connected to it. The life of someone in the Experience Machine is guaranteed to be better than anyone else living outside of it. Since there is no pain to be felt, a Hedonist would say that a life lived inside of the Experience Machine is better than a life lived outside of it. Philosopher, Robert Nozick, suggests that contrary to Hedonist belief, a life outside the experience would be far more valuable than a useless life hooked up to the machine.
When talking about pleasure there needs to be a distinction between the quality and the quantity. While having many different kinds of pleasures can be considered a good thing, one is more likely to favor quality over quantity. With this distinction in mind, one is more able to quantify their pleasures as higher or lesser pleasures by ascertaining the quality of them. This facilitates the ability to achieve the fundamental moral value that is happiness. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure.