What Does Nozick's Experience Machine Argument Really Prove?
ABSTRACT: Nozick's well-known Experience Machine argument can be considered a typically successful argument: as far as I know, it has not been discussed much and has been widely seen as conclusive, or at least convincing enough to refute the mental-state versions of utilitarianism. I believe that if his argument were conclusive, its destructive effect would be even stronger. It would not only refute mental-state utilitarianism, but all theories (whether utilitarian or not) considering a certain subjective mental state (happiness, pleasure, desire, satisfaction) as the only valuable state. I shall call these theories "mental state welfarist theories." I do not know whether utilitarianism or, in general, mental-state welfarism is plausible, but I doubt that Nozick's argument is strong enough to prove that it is not.
I
Nozick's well-known Experience Machine argument can be considered as a typically successful argument: as far as I know, it has not been very discussed and has been widely seen as conclusive, or at least convincing enough to refute the mental-state versions of Utilitarianism. (1) Indeed, I believe that if his argument were conclusive, its destructive effect would be even stronger. It would not only refute mental-state utilitarianism, but all theories (whether utilitarian or not) considering a certain subjective mental state (happiness, pleasure, desire satisfaction) as the only valuable state. I shall call these theories "mental state welfarist theories." (2)
I do not know whether utilitarianism or, in general, mental-state welfarism is plausible. But I doubt that Nozick's argument is strong enough to prove that it is not.
This note tries to explain my doubts. Let us begin by briefly recalling the argument:
"Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life experiences? [...] Of course, while in the tank you won't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually happening [...] Would you plug in?." (3)
II
According to a first interpretation of Nozick's argument, it proves (or attempts to prove) that we have strong reasons not to plug into the Machine. Such reasons could not be accepted by mental state Welfarism.
Neuroscientists claim that due to unconscious brain activity, we are “biochemical puppets” (Nahmias). Through experiments conducted by neuroscientists like Itzhak Fried, neural activity is shown to occur before a conscious decision is made. Fried concluded that this was a predetermined occurrence
In his book, A New Deal for the American People, Roger Biles analyzes the programs of the New Deal in regards to their impact on the American society as a whole. He discusses the successes and failures of the New Deal policy, and highlights the role it played in the forming of American history. He claims that the New Deal reform preserved the foundation of American federalism and represented the second American Revolution. Biles argues that despite its little reforms and un-revolutionary programs, the New Deal formed a very limited system with the creation of four stabilizers that helped to prevent another depression and balance the economy.
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.
Robert Nozick was a political philosopher who best reflects the political thinking of the United States, to the extent that his work is unthinkable without considering the history and the constitution of the nation. From this starting point Nozick show us that in the state of nature men are entitled on one hand to their lives and safety, and also to self-possession. Inspired by empiricist philosopher John Locke who proclaimed that natural rights exist and are claimable, Nozick claims that his concept of a minimal state is morally justifiable. “Only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against any force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates person’s rights not to be force to do certain
Jost, Kenneth. "Performance-Enhancing Drugs: An Overview." Performance Enhancing Drugs. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. At Issue. Rpt. from "Sports and Drugs." CQ Researcher 14 (23 July 2004): 616-622. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.
The use of performance enhancing drugs improves the athletes’ performance; however, it may endanger the body’s natural mechanism. The body is an organism that is able to carry out its optimal function by how it is treated through the lifestyle, whether sedentary or active, nutritional habits, exercise and hygienic habits of the individual. These are altered by the use of drugs. Many athletes are oblivious to the reality of the grave effects of doping on the body and put themselves at risk for acquiring many potential illnesses, for example, “cardiovascular and liver disease, infertility in males and females and emotional instability – depression” (Maxwell et al., 2005). These reactions may be evident after prolonged use of drugs as athletes may become dependent. In contrast, enhancement drugs may “increase the athletes strength, speed, appetite and reduce fatigue” (Arnheim, & Prentice, 2002). These advantages add to the overwhelm...
This essay will discuss the extent to which the New Deal strengthened the USA’s capitalism. The New Deal introduced reforms to the capitalist system and they got rid of the fetchers that were abused in the 1920’s. The New Deal reformed the system to protect workers from abuse from the owners of the factories and how the US government took more responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.
One reason described to be a cause of happiness is income. Don Peck and Ross Douthat indicate how, “National income appears to be one of the best single predictors of overall well-being, explaining perhaps 40 percent of the difference in contentment among nations” (352). With this statement, comes the explanation of how income can influence happiness in adults who strive to earn a living. Research illustrates how, “For individual countries, with few exceptions, self-reported happiness has increased as incomes have risen” (Douthat 352). While these two statements provide sufficient evidence for the reason of income bringing happiness, income itself is not relevant.
The New Deal, established by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, was a series of programs put into affect to fix the Great Depression that the United States was currently in. Beginning with the crash of the stock market on October 29, 1929, America was plunged into its most severe economic downturn yet. Roosevelt developed this plan to save the country. At this time the people of America were in a huge economic unrest. Most in America were homeless or unemployed. Roosevelt created his programs to help these exact people from poverty. He assured the people of America that his programs would help the crumbling economy, mass unemployment, and low wages. This chain of programs raised both nationalism and national character throughout America for a few years. The author of this excerpt had a very negative view of FDR’s work and critiqued every program within the New Deal. Roosevelt’s programs have many long-term consequences, some of which are still in effect today. Most of the programs still in action were modified in the 1960’s, these are the present day welfare programs that most people are accustomed to. While the New Deal was not entirely successful, Franklin D. Roosevelt did the best he could with the time and circumstances given.
Brousek, Bob. The Impact of the New Deal on American History. Working paper no. HIST 8916. N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print.
The New Deal period has generally - but not unanimously - been seen as a turning point in American politics, with the states relinquishing much of their autonomy, the President acquiring new authority and importance, and the role of government in citizens' lives increasing. The extent to which this was planned by the architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been greatly contested, however. Yet, while it is instructive to note the limitations of Roosevelt's leadership, there is not much sense in the claims that the New Deal was haphazard, a jumble of expedient and populist schemes, or as W. Williams has put it, "undirected". FDR had a clear overarching vision of what he wanted to do to America, and was prepared to drive through the structural changes required to achieve this vision.
Psychologists who adopt nomothetic approach are mainly concerned with what we share with others, but differ in degree. Establishing universal laws where all populations are describe and measure on the same set of dimensions and scale, i.e., trait theory. Psychologists, who adopt idiographic approach interested in the aspect of experience over time, discover what makes each of us unique. Theoretically, they can be coherent, because the nomothetic approach also agrees with this 'uniqueness,' as it measures differences in degree.
First, it condemns others to ‘meager hand-to-mouth existence. Indeed, Bob no longer pursues his conceptions of a good life, even though his goals should be equally respected with dignity. Second, the first-come, first-served doctrine of appropriation that Nozick accepts is unfair. As a fair procedure of appropriation, the system which equalises chances for appropriation is better than a first-come, first-served doctrine of appropriation. However, Nozick’s proviso permits a first-come, first-served doctrine of appropriation even when chances are unequal. Due to this counterexample, Nozick’s proviso is inconsistent with the idea of treating people as persons with dignity. Therefore, Nozick’s formula is inconsistent with Kantian principle. Nozick’s formula
Nozick’s arguments in this claim are fair more convincing, as it allows individuals the freedom to utilize their natural endowments to their own benefit without complicating them with a necessity to aid the worse off in society. Beyond Rawl’s principle of redistribution towards the least well off, there is no principle beyond addressing the situation of burdened individuals.
Hedonism is a way of life that is rooted in a person’s experiences or states of consciousness that can be pleasant or unpleasant. The ethical egoist would state that a person should maximize his or her pleasant states of consciousness in order to lead the best life. Act Utilitarian on the other hand would state that these enjoyable states of consciousness should be maximized by one’s actions for everyone in order to attain the most utility. On the surface, this appears to be a good way to live, however, as Nozick states through his example of the experience machine that living life as a hedonist can be detrimental. It is a hollow existence that will ultimately be unsatisfactory because of the lack of making real decisions and relationships which are important to living a fulfilling life.