4 ms·

Some would disagree that the purpose of existence is to promote happiness. Robert Nozick offered this thought experiment to which I would not opt to maximize h

by bko 11y ago

Some would disagree that the purpose of existence is to promote happiness. Robert Nozick offered this thought experiment to which I would not opt to maximize happiness: > 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? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

kaffeemitsahne 11y ago
Why wouldn't you?
- karmakaze 11y ago
  A game is more fun without the cheat-code.
  - olewhalehunter 11y ago
    You live life with significantly more "cheat codes" than the rest of the world, now what makes you think you aren't already living with "cheat codes" you aren't aware of? Since you could also program your reality to enjoy the benefits of the "cheat codes" without actually being aware of them, then there's a bit of cosmic irony to your statement.
    - karmakaze 11y ago
      But what's proposed isn't any cheat-code, it's The cheat-code. I remember playing one of the Dooms once with its god cheat.. for a few minutes.
- bko 11y ago
  Because I believe in a greater purpose in life (in the non-religious sense). But that's just me
- cylinder 11y ago
  Replace drugs with machine and we already have such a thing. However the pleasure from drugs is stigmatized and prohibited, and the addiction to the pleasure machine is seen as life destroying.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    IMO - it's not the pleasure itself that is stigmatized, but the side-effects. Side effects including deteriorating health of the user, as well as the occasional resorting to immoral or even criminal means to feed the habit. There's also a whole dog-whistle aspect to the 'war on drugs' (e.g. massive differences in sentences on crack vs. cocaine offences)
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Because I happen to care about things-in-themselves, and I can have a lot of fun and be very happy with things-in-themselves. Experience machines are the kind of thought experiment invented by people who can't conceive of real life being a nice place to live, and thus constantly want to escape into the un-real.
Retra 11y ago
The problem here is that you've created a scenario that talks about a single human brain, but "maximizing human happiness" doesn't refer to any single person's brain. It refers the state of our entire social environment as viewed through the aggregate of individual experience. And you're probably vastly underestimating the complexity and comprehensiveness demanded of such a machine.
- bko 11y ago
  Would I like to impose the experience machine to all of humanity or at least all those that I love? My answer doesn't change. Actually, I would go to great lengths to prevent imposing such a fate on humanity. I may be naive in thinking this but human emotions and euphoria can probably be boiled down to a chemical reaction in our brain such that brain activity of someone experiencing something pleasurable in "real life" and that of someone taking a substance simulating these same feelings would be indistinguishable. However, I believe there is so much more to existence than our own perception even though I am not spiritual at all.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Again, I don't think you are aware of what "indistinguishable from reality" actually entails. The capabilities are so extreme there that you'll have essentially created your own universe. And what do you care if you live in a different universe? You don't even understand this one well enough to know the difference. So you're basically making this decision on the grounds of your own ignorance. What if this world is a simulation, and the real world is a wonderful and happy place? You don't know the difference, so what business do you have taking a stand on the issue? >However, I believe there is so much more to existence than our own perception even though I am not spiritual at all. You don't know what that word means, then.
    - bko 11y ago
      Fair point. What I had originally thought of as an experience machine was drugs that would produce chemically equivalent reactions as those produced from our experiences. Spiritual usually has an anthropomorphic meaning which is what I object to: Defined as "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things" Maybe a better way of stating it is that I am not an empiricist that believes that sensory experience is the end-all be-all.
rndn 11y ago
I think this response has something to do with the fact that artificial stimulation is often regarded as deceptive in western culture. So the decision is heavily influenced by how people see it being judged by their social environment. You can achieve an interesting twist by asking: Would you hook your brain to a pleasure machine if everybody else agrees to use it too (and of course it wouldn't cause any social or cognitive side-effects, boredom, fatigue etc.)?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fweespeech 11y ago
I wonder what Robert Nozick would think of recreational drug use. That is as close to that "machine" that we have in reality and its pretty clear people are willing to accept/risk the negative impacts and use such drugs. This being the case, I'm pretty sure, people would use that machine if it was legal and cheap. Similarly, I'm pretty sure at least some of those people would prefer it to real life. Similarly, the only reason I prefer "real life" is the relationships I built with people. If I had been given the choice, say, 10+ years ago to have such a machine ... I'd prefer it to RL and the effort it took to build the kind of life I want. So its a philosophical question with answer of "it depends on the person and RL situation they have".
- bko 11y ago
  Of course some unhappy with their lives prefer to live in an alternate reality. I don't mean to suggest everyone would prefer "real life" but that the majority of people don't simply chose to maximize happiness at the expense of other things. One could argue that the value you get from your "real life" relationships with people are nothing more than a simple chemical reaction taking place in your brain that could also be simulated.
pharrington 11y ago
The internal experience of an individual is totally beyond the point (the stimulation of watching an engaging movie is literally real in your brain!); all the issues about generating happiness for the human species revolve around the sustainability of that happiness. Kindof can't handwave away the social implications of promoting happiness within society. Also the arguments of "we'd rather DOOOOOO something than just EXPERIENCE doing it" obviously either rely on some sort of dualist existence or just straight out say the experience machine isn't as good as advertised.

by bko 11y ago

kaffeemitsahne 11y ago

Why wouldn't you?

karmakaze 11y ago
A game is more fun without the cheat-code.
- olewhalehunter 11y ago
  You live life with significantly more "cheat codes" than the rest of the world, now what makes you think you aren't already living with "cheat codes" you aren't aware of? Since you could also program your reality to enjoy the benefits of the "cheat codes" without actually being aware of them, then there's a bit of cosmic irony to your statement.
  - karmakaze 11y ago
    But what's proposed isn't any cheat-code, it's The cheat-code. I remember playing one of the Dooms once with its god cheat.. for a few minutes.
bko 11y ago
Because I believe in a greater purpose in life (in the non-religious sense). But that's just me
cylinder 11y ago
Replace drugs with machine and we already have such a thing. However the pleasure from drugs is stigmatized and prohibited, and the addiction to the pleasure machine is seen as life destroying.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  IMO - it's not the pleasure itself that is stigmatized, but the side-effects. Side effects including deteriorating health of the user, as well as the occasional resorting to immoral or even criminal means to feed the habit. There's also a whole dog-whistle aspect to the 'war on drugs' (e.g. massive differences in sentences on crack vs. cocaine offences)
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Because I happen to care about things-in-themselves, and I can have a lot of fun and be very happy with things-in-themselves. Experience machines are the kind of thought experiment invented by people who can't conceive of real life being a nice place to live, and thus constantly want to escape into the un-real.

Retra 11y ago

The problem here is that you've created a scenario that talks about a single human brain, but "maximizing human happiness" doesn't refer to any single person's brain. It refers the state of our entire social environment as viewed through the aggregate of individual experience. And you're probably vastly underestimating the complexity and comprehensiveness demanded of such a machine.

bko 11y ago
Would I like to impose the experience machine to all of humanity or at least all those that I love? My answer doesn't change. Actually, I would go to great lengths to prevent imposing such a fate on humanity. I may be naive in thinking this but human emotions and euphoria can probably be boiled down to a chemical reaction in our brain such that brain activity of someone experiencing something pleasurable in "real life" and that of someone taking a substance simulating these same feelings would be indistinguishable. However, I believe there is so much more to existence than our own perception even though I am not spiritual at all.
- Retra 11y ago
  Again, I don't think you are aware of what "indistinguishable from reality" actually entails. The capabilities are so extreme there that you'll have essentially created your own universe. And what do you care if you live in a different universe? You don't even understand this one well enough to know the difference. So you're basically making this decision on the grounds of your own ignorance. What if this world is a simulation, and the real world is a wonderful and happy place? You don't know the difference, so what business do you have taking a stand on the issue? >However, I believe there is so much more to existence than our own perception even though I am not spiritual at all. You don't know what that word means, then.
  - bko 11y ago
    Fair point. What I had originally thought of as an experience machine was drugs that would produce chemically equivalent reactions as those produced from our experiences. Spiritual usually has an anthropomorphic meaning which is what I object to: Defined as "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things" Maybe a better way of stating it is that I am not an empiricist that believes that sensory experience is the end-all be-all.

rndn 11y ago

I think this response has something to do with the fact that artificial stimulation is often regarded as deceptive in western culture. So the decision is heavily influenced by how people see it being judged by their social environment. You can achieve an interesting twist by asking: Would you hook your brain to a pleasure machine if everybody else agrees to use it too (and of course it wouldn't cause any social or cognitive side-effects, boredom, fatigue etc.)?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fweespeech 11y ago

I wonder what Robert Nozick would think of recreational drug use. That is as close to that "machine" that we have in reality and its pretty clear people are willing to accept/risk the negative impacts and use such drugs. This being the case, I'm pretty sure, people would use that machine if it was legal and cheap. Similarly, I'm pretty sure at least some of those people would prefer it to real life. Similarly, the only reason I prefer "real life" is the relationships I built with people. If I had been given the choice, say, 10+ years ago to have such a machine ... I'd prefer it to RL and the effort it took to build the kind of life I want. So its a philosophical question with answer of "it depends on the person and RL situation they have".

bko 11y ago
Of course some unhappy with their lives prefer to live in an alternate reality. I don't mean to suggest everyone would prefer "real life" but that the majority of people don't simply chose to maximize happiness at the expense of other things. One could argue that the value you get from your "real life" relationships with people are nothing more than a simple chemical reaction taking place in your brain that could also be simulated.

pharrington 11y ago

The internal experience of an individual is totally beyond the point (the stimulation of watching an engaging movie is literally real in your brain!); all the issues about generating happiness for the human species revolve around the sustainability of that happiness. Kindof can't handwave away the social implications of promoting happiness within society. Also the arguments of "we'd rather DOOOOOO something than just EXPERIENCE doing it" obviously either rely on some sort of dualist existence or just straight out say the experience machine isn't as good as advertised.