As a college student I can say without a doubt I would love to be a snail when he was like “the answer is obviously… no” I was genuinely surprised

@mutabazimichael8404

2 жыл бұрын

Me too

@gauravtee

Жыл бұрын

@@letsdraw8062 Exactly my thoughts 😂 But I agree with Kathryn's comment otherwise

@Bronco541

Жыл бұрын

100% agree, there seems to be a lot of huge assumptions in this thought experiment

@VikingDeathMachine

Жыл бұрын

Lol i thought the same thing

@dwntherabbithole9785

Жыл бұрын

Could I get a 7-day free trial on the offer?

I take issue because I said yes to being turned into a snail. I'm not even being sarcastic. I just genuinely think that sounds great.

@quentonnankivell956

2 жыл бұрын

Same, sounds amazing life

@thelukesternater

2 жыл бұрын

You are broken on a fundamental level and your fourth grade teacher was right to try and make you repeat the fourth grade, your misguided parents did you a mis service to you keeping you with your friend group. One might even say that this friend group is the thing holding you back. Jkjk snail fun is real fun

@IHateThisHandleSystem

Жыл бұрын

Then you are basically saying that you would do what Cypher did in the original Matrix movie. You'd willingly go back into the Matrix.

@SaladDongs

Жыл бұрын

@@IHateThisHandleSystem First of all, it's different. Second of all, so what?

I think it would be really irrational to say no to the super heroin and if people were offered it for free many would probably say yes

@coffeedude

8 ай бұрын

I have other ambitions and things to do with my limited time on earth

@timurtheterrible4062

7 ай бұрын

​@@coffeedudeWhy not do those things while under the influence?

@coffeedude

7 ай бұрын

@@timurtheterrible4062 i doubt i could be effective while under the influence

@minitbnn

6 ай бұрын

​@@coffeedudenot after you tried the super heroin you wouldn't

@Synerco

2 ай бұрын

Many people no doubt would, but some people wouldn't. To be honest, I'm actually terrified by the prospect most people would choose to plug into the experience machine, but some people wouldn't. This proves that expected utility is not the universal determinant of human behavior. I worry the kind of person who would take any of the offers is psychological incapable of appreciating the significance of the fact that not everyone is like them. Someone who would rather be happy than right might prefer to believe the lie that no one would rather be right than happy. Worse still, they may never be able to learn the great paradox of their values - true happiness will always elude those who value it more than the truth. If a parent values pleasing experience over truth, then, if given Nozick's offer, they would happily abandon their child to experience never abandoning them and experiencing a perfect parental relationship. A parent who would want to experience happiness through their experiences with their child regardless of the reality of the experience does not love their child, they love only the experiences they can get from their child. To truly love someone means not wanting to be happy at their expense. It means there are possible conditions wherein you would choose guaranteed net unhappiness over guaranteed net happiness. It means choosing to believe the truth even when you expect it to cause you less pleasure and more pain than the alternative. This is a special case of a general principle. In a reality without experience machines - in a reality whose truth always eventually overpowers personal truth - those who prefer experience over reality paradoxically choose to be unhappy. If you only discover truths with expected utility, you'll overlook the truths with unexpected utility, and these are incredibly common.

So what would happen if a scientist approaches you and tells you, that you are currently plugged into the experience machine and whether you want to go out and live your "actual" life? Would it still be rational to prefer the "real" world and would most people be rational?

@jeorhan1262

Жыл бұрын

Watch "The Matrix"

@doodoo4981

Жыл бұрын

Bro casually dropped one of the best responses to this thought experiment

@hieron9366

11 ай бұрын

Precisely my thoughts. I think what it demonstrates to us is that people care about "authenticity". But that can be understood as a quality that is influencign pleasure.

@rrshier

9 ай бұрын

I would say, "How do you know? If I'm in here, then you're clearly in here with me, and you are unable to tell, just as I am unable. How can I trust you, and how did you come to know this?"

@benhesp

9 ай бұрын

Exactly, status quo bias is a powerful thing.

This experience machine sounds very much like video games. You get to have experiences and feel like you're doing things, but when the game ends nothing really happened. This is especially true for virtual reality technology. And people sure seem to voluntarily do these sorts of things intentionally and with great apparent pleasure.

@TiniestHippo

3 жыл бұрын

I understand why you say this, and there are definitely some games guilty of this, but it's a story-telling medium. The way you consume the story is different from a book or a movie, but it's no less valuable than other forms of fiction. Some are well written and designed, some are just shooting people without much plot; this is true of every medium of entertainment, but they shouldn't be written off because of that.

@kensey007

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. The experience machine is my phone. And nearly all of us are signing up for it.

@williamjenkins4913

Жыл бұрын

The fact that Skinner Box heavy mobile games are almost all you can find goes to show that people do indeed choose the experience box.

@clorofilaazul

Жыл бұрын

"nothing really happened" Of course it happened. You were thinking about how to solve the problems the game gives you (your brain was thinking), Your eyes are moving to see the most they can see on the scenario the game gives you, your moving your hands in a thoughful way, you release serotonin and endorfines in the end, etc. Lot's of things were happening. That is why the phrase "nothing really happened" makes no sense. P.S. - I'm totally not into gaming... I prefer to make music.

@FanOfLiberty1776

Жыл бұрын

The experience machine that’s put forth in the thought experiment provides you a way to really alter reality, not just experience them as if they happen outside of reality. So, do you want to alter reality via the experience machine, or just go on living your life with its pleasures and joys, as well as with its pains sadness and struggles. Do you want to “hook-up” to the machine and reap some benefits, or go on with doing the work of life?

Apparently it's a generational difference. Maybe in his times people really answered "no". You can still somehow argue against the experience machine , although it is difficult, but against a machine that will change you the way you want? It seems to me that reality has disproved his intuitions about humanity.

@renegadesofanarchy289

10 ай бұрын

I’m 25, even when I was 10 I wanted to plug in because life was just too unpleasant even back then.

I feel this is more of a comment of how we find it hard to detach ourselves from our personal thoughts and feelings as oppose to there being something just as valuable as pleasure itself. If you asked me, I would without a doubt choose the snail or machine as it grants you pleasure with little pain until the end. I would also argue that this is the completely logical and reasonable choice and anyone who says otherwise are unable to detach themselves from the things they love in life while forgetting all the bad. You could argue 'but i would never see my family again or do the things i love' however, in the snails body, that isn't something you would desire or even comprehend, you would just be happy.

I would argue that if there was machine which would transform you into a person you want to be such as strong, beautiful, intelligent, healthy etc many if not most people would go for it and if required paid a fortune to do so

@SmilingOwle

Жыл бұрын

reminds me of soma in brave new world from huxley, it is described as the ultimate drug in the book and everybody takes it.

I have a couple of issues with the experience machine thought experiment. The first has to do with the assumption that everyone or even a good majority would say no. Personally I would say YES to the experience machine, because I don’t think reality is inherently valuable. If I did, I would never read a fantasy novel, play a video game or even watch a movie. In fact I would only say no if me going into the machine hurt people directly, since that would be a negative action in terms of utilitarianism. The second problem has to do with fact that we *might be in the experience machine right now!* There was a study done asking people that if this were the matrix, would they unplug? 87% said they would NOT unplug if in real life, they were a criminal serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison. In fact even if in real life, they were a multimillionaire living in morocco, 50% would STILL not unplug. This suggests that status quo bias plays a big role in why people refuse the experience machine in general. Actions speak louder than words of course, and in the case of super heroin, there was a woman on an electronic device designed to give pleasure and relieve chronic pain, who was given free reign on how much pain relief/ pleasure she could experience (no tolerance or side effects.) She decided to basically lock herself in her bedroom maximising her own pleasure for 2 years before her heart gave it. She described the experience as “erotic.”

@izzytaylor5405

3 жыл бұрын

This really helped me answer a question on my homework, thank you!

@thelotuseater6496

3 жыл бұрын

@@izzytaylor5405 Glad to help

@jatindrabhattacharya7106

3 жыл бұрын

do you have a link to the study which concluded that 87% of people wouldn't plug in?

@jolssoni2499

2 жыл бұрын

@@jatindrabhattacharya7106 Late reply but Felipe De Brigard "If you like it, does it matter if it's real? "

@byDefAlt06

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks a bunch writing an essay and this really helped.

What of the opposite thought experiment? What if I could give you all the things that you want? You would wake up with the motivation and desire to exercise and study hard. You are brilliant, beautiful, healthy and wealthy. You are loved and are well respected. The people you are most attracted to are also strongly attracted to you. You have the innate skills to do any task you desire; write, play sports, lead nations, etc. ...BUT you never feel pleasure. You still feel pain, but you never ever experience any kind of pleasure. Would you do it?

@some-random-dude-on-internet

Жыл бұрын

you mean keeping living my life?

@cristiancam5251

9 ай бұрын

I don't even understand the point of this question, the answer is obviously no, we can easily simplify it to "If you accept you can never experience anything good, just pain" what does it matter if I can do all I want if I don't feel good doing it, and if I don't feel good doing anything then there is nothing I'd really want to do in the first place.

@adonis744

8 ай бұрын

But nobody ever claimed that we do not need pleasure and that just doing the acts are good on their own. So your thought experiment actually makes no sense.

@vubao5830

Ай бұрын

Since when does "what matters" turn into "what exists"...

The problem with many of these offers is that they come with negative consequences after the fact. For example, snails have short lives, and there is nothing about bringing you back to human form. Also if you spend lots of time plugged into some VR world, eventually when you unplug you will have to suffer the consequences of wasted time, etc. I think that's the reason why people reject them. What if you can become a snail and when you have lived the snail lifetime, you are magically transported back in time to when you just took the offer? You can resume your human life with no consequences other than having the memories of being a happy snail. I think many people will take up the offer. I would.

I have to admit that I was seriously considering the machine after I could have pleasure, transformation and results. I mean, why not? Yet there's still something making me hesitate.

@ImKinoNichtSabbeln

Жыл бұрын

For some of us, the Red Pill ("Matrix", you know, the movie) is still more desirable. It seems each of us has an individual limit how much suffering we are willing to bare for it. Which begs the question whether these next machine would be a "desire machine" "fixing" our desires as well, and how we'd deal with it. AFAIK, teachings like Buddhism explain that there are neither any pills, nor machines. And most gnostic schools explain that every pill but one is blue.

Social media is the experience machine and we throw ourselves passively into it.

What he is saying in a roundabout way is that humans crave responsibility. However, you could (I think correctly) define pleasure more broadly and maintain that we still gain pleasure from feeling responsible for our accomplishments, so the desire for things to be real is still rooted in pleasure. However, that would create a need to stipulate that this pleasure of direct action is of a greater weight than second-hand pleasure. I ask; if someone has a pleasant dream, then wakes up and is disappointed, are they dissatisfied because the pleasure they were experiencing in the dream has ended, or because the pleasure that they experienced was not based in physical reality?

Maybe I'm wrong to disagree with Nozick, but I think I would choose the experience machine. I would go further than a perfect snail life, or a perfect human life, or my virtual actions transform real me, or my virtual actions/desires act on real life. I would go as far to plug in and experience pure eternal bliss: timeless, spaceless, incorporeal, zero personality, and concentrated bliss. This would have to make the experience machine more valuable than any kind of life we could ever possibly live. Maybe this makes me an immoral or "amoral" person? I honestly don't care. Perfect bliss is the greatest, most valuable good according to me. Everyone ought to obtain this. The funny thing is that it is momentarily available when we meditate and enter a blissful flow state. More activities than meditation can obtain this. Sometimes work, sex, games, music, drugs and loads of other activities can obtain bliss for at least a few moments.

Im so glad I found this channel. That video was awesome. ❤

From the psychological perspective, resistance comes from human tendency resist change. People tend to value or find value to what they already have, as the result of their choice. Except if the change you are offering is their aspirations, such as actually writing, have written a masterpiece, and/or being recognized as a great writer.

@IHateThisHandleSystem

Жыл бұрын

Much of my resistance comes from not wanting to reach my ultimate goal. Life is about the journey, not the destination. If I were to be put into a state of pure pleasure there would be nothing left for me to work toward, and thus my purpose for living would cease to exist.

@SaladDongs

Жыл бұрын

@@IHateThisHandleSystem Why is it about the journey and not the destination? Is it not tied to satisfaction? I think even if you didn't actually have anything to work toward, in the pleasure machine it would at least feel as if you were working towards being happy all the time. But finally, I want to ask you, why are you attached to your purpose in life? If your purpose in life is to improve yourself and be happy and so on, and you reached that goal, that ultimate happiness, why is it bad? What if you could renounce even your purpose, and just be happy inside the machine, or perhaps even ending there on a high note?

The term that comes to mind for me is, Opportunity Cost. Translated, this means that more-complex-minded beings (more than likely) wouldn't give up where they are currently at due to the cost of giving up on the opportunity for a greater-level positive experience. To enter the "experience room" would be to put our faith in the operator's hands, and essentially relinquish control, all along trusting that they: 1. Know what's best for me 2. know of ALL positive experiences that can or could possible be had 3. that the operator truly has whats best for me in mind If I give up all of those things, the aggregate positive may or may not be what I could make for myself. The entire argument also leaves out the positive (most) people get from making the decisions for themselves (somewhat recursive I know) about the experiences they pursue, and that being on a temporally active basis (continuum). The statement of "we like to FEEL as if we are in control" is certainly applicable here, as almost a proof of the positivity of (the feeling of) control itself.

It's pure bliss to understand ethics and thank you very much for helping ❤

I am impressed that Jeffery taught himself to write backwards so he can use the glass overlay.

@bryanbeeblebrox8237

3 ай бұрын

I've wondered though if he's writing forward on the glass (from his perspective), and then just flips the video 180 degrees. Is he really left-handed?

Thanks you sir You are really Great .I never got chance to study philosophy with clear understanding inlife .Since I found it really helps me for clear understanding

O.o did this man just write backwards with no second thought?

@shaggyrandy1264

Жыл бұрын

Reading backwards too

Very good video! It couldn't be presented any better than this.

Amazing channel, thanks.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🐌 Refusing to become a snail or accepting a pleasure-inducing offer (like super heroin) points to something important beyond just pleasure as what's good for a person. 03:28 💭 The Experience Machine thought experiment challenges hedonism, the theory that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad for individuals. 09:31 🚀 Three things beyond pleasure seem important for people: actually doing things, being a certain way, and making real contact with reality. 17:20 🌟 What we desire is living ourselves in contact with reality; machines cannot fulfill this, suggesting something more than pleasure as what's good for us. 20:01 ⚖️ Hedonism is a theory about what's good for individuals, not a moral theory about what people ought to do. The Experience Machine example challenges hedonism's claim that pleasure is the only good thing for an individual. Made with HARPA AI

These videos deserve much higher view count.

Re: the Nozick Experience Machine. We stopped our analysis and drew conclusions at the penultimate step, here. If we analyze the conclusion, that what the machine lacks is direct contact with reality, and ask what if the machine perfectly simulated direct contact with reality... we would run into the realization that a PERFECT simulation of reality and reality itself are one in the same. And that would defeat the arguments against the machine. It is rational to use the machine because the machine is simply a way of actually experiencing a GENUINE perfect life.

I shit you not, I would pay a lot of money to connect to the machine. And I'm sure all those souls that died by suicide would be saved by the machine LOL, human experience is not as blissful as the author tends to imagine. I doubt if with a chronic pain illness would hesitate to connect to the machine, painkillers also help you escape at least temporarily reality of pain.

You're insane if you don't say yes to the super heroin with zero side effects...

@nobodythisisstupid4888

9 ай бұрын

Exactly. If you accept super-heroin as heroin with no side effects, including no social strife, then there is no reason to refuse to take it on rational, hedonistic grounds. Either it in no way prevents you from experiencing normal daily pleasure and just adds to it, or it requires you to choose to disconnect fully from reality (which contrary to some people’s belief, does not necessarily occur with heroin use, it is possible to still be present and be high), probably by physical means (being stuck in the machine for duration of effects). So either you accept that it has no side effects and therefore there is no rational reason to say no, or you fail to recognize how purposefully choosing to isolate yourself for the purposes of a drug effect necessarily maintains the socially derived negative effects of regular heroin and the super-heroin is not actually being presented truthfully and does not actually remove all the side effects of heroin. People are already able to use powerful opioids and live normal, happy, healthy, socially functional lives when they have access to clean, consistent, legal, cheap, and socially acceptable supplies of opioids (see various people on methadone, suboxone, and people with chronic pain on opioid medications). This isn’t generally true (not making a statement that generally it isn’t true, just that it may not always be true) but you can see how just meeting some qualities of super-heroin without even looking at actual drug effects already shows that regular opioid use does not necessarily detract from ones’s life. For some it may actually be a net positive once you remove a lot of these social and economic barriers on using opioids. Now you remove the bad effects like withdrawal, overdosage, social strife, lack of control of usage, etc., and you are trying to tell me there is a rational means to not use when considering only the principle of maximizing pleasure? Nah, you’re full of shit and are introducing another implicit moral interpretation of what is ethical or not regarding sobriety and intentional changing of perception.

@coffeedude

8 ай бұрын

Don't you have any other ambition in your life?

The answer to the Fermi Paradox? Sure, the vast, vast, vast majority of intelligent systems that evolve in the universe peter out or destroy themselves before reaching interstellar travel. But there does exist a tiny cohort of civilizations who have passed safely through the valley of apocalypse into the Nozick era. It will be a point of pride over simulated cocktails, among some academics, to stipulate that, in fact, Nozick had argued against his machine. Isn't that ironic? Though nearly all intelligent systems are indeed doomed, a few have retired to quantum servers, far underground, upon which perfection is perfectly simulated. The surfaces of their planets have long ago become green again. There are no more meat bodies underground. Only a fractal of qualia. Gossamer strands of pleasure. Aesthetic currents and eddies flowing and mixing freely in an ocean of experience.

Rationality may be relative. Personally, I’d find the ‘results machine’ paired with the ‘experience machine’ much, much more rational. Hypothetically, you could simply get more done and derive more pleasure from that, than from living. So, my question is; how is it rationality to want to live one’s life for some sense of contact or being, in lieu of accomplishing more? That notion seems like the height of human irrationality

Great content dude

The flaw in the first 2 examples is that we don't have a scale to understand the pleasure and we have never experienced it so we would tend to believe that this life altering thing is not worth taking risk . For the machine I honestly think that only people who have thought about it on a surface level would say no. Coz you can't disprove that is not exactly what is going in this reality

If superheroin was real, huge swathes of people would be instantly on it. Maybe not everyone, but an enormous amount for sure. And if the society somehow does not collapse, say the machines provide everything, then chances are over time literally everyone would simply be on it.

So I plug into the transformation machine and a few hours later I come out with a memory of 6 months of working out, and have 35 pound weight loss and 6 pack abs? Where do I sign up?

As clear from these comments, there are too many objections people can make to these supposed counterexamples. I'll make one simple objection to the machine: the reason people would object to it is that the KNOWLEDGE that their experience is an illusion produces a painful emotion (imagine waking up from a machine and having the painful realization that you've lived in a machine for 20 years and nothing you did was real, or maybe you wake up from a coma where you had nothing but pleasant dreams). We desire real experiences, but it's not immediately obvious why that desire is in contradiction with hedonism, if real experience in itself is just more pleasurable than illusory experience (because illusions cause us pain). In fact, this argument never specifies why do people reject illusions and strongly prefer real experience. It relies on intuition, and intuition relies on emotions, which are themselves either pleasurable emotions or painful emotions. So we haven't yet escaped the confines of the hedonistic mindset. To do that we need to go deeper. Why do we experience pleasure and pain? Pleasure and pain are signals to the brain that help drive our behaviors. An example of a pleasurable signal is when we eat. Why do we experience pleasure from food? Because if we don't find food, we will die. An example of a painful signal is when we break a bone. Why do we experience pain during injury? Because avoiding injuries improves our survival. Pleasure and pain signals have a purpose and that purpose is to drive behaviors that have some deeper value to us, such as our very basic need to survive. Imagine a child that is born without pain. That child injures themselves often because they lack the signal to their brain that something is harmful. The injury still causes harm but the person is neutral towards it. This example shows that pain is good for us. We actually need it. Children like this exist. And what they show us is contradictory to hedonism: it shows that pain serves a purpose. It is a necessary experience and has positive value. That's because pain and pleasure are not of value in their own right, they are just a proxy for the true value of our behavior. If pain and pleasure are proxies for the value of our behavior, then the hedonistic mindset is ONLY true so long as the signals we are receiving accurately reflect the true value of that behavior. But there are examples where these proxies can also mislead us and that's where hedonism fails. The dangers of heroin lies in its deceptiveness. We have a pleasurable experience based on a false signal. The experience machine also tricks us by sending false signals. In both cases, the underlying value those signals are meant to reflect becomes disconnected from our perception. There are many, many examples of false perceptions and this is why we need a better measurement of value than pleasure alone.

I think a factor which many people consider (myself included) is distrust in future counterfactual selves. For example. The me living in the real world would love to write a book, and would love to feel accomplished for having written a book, but I would *not* want to feel the accomplishment of having written a book I never wrote. Fortunately, because I live in the real world, I simply don't have the mental gymnastics to gaslight myself that way, so I don't have to worry about it. But the experience machine can provide *any* experience, including the experience of accomplishment for writing a book I never wrote. And as mentioned before, I do not want to become the type of person who has that experience. So if I'm worried that my future self may be tempted by the offer, I would prefer going into a machine which *cannot* provide that experience over the standard one in the thought experiment. Since this isn't a purely hedonic preference, the experience machine thought experiment refutes hedonism. Note, however, that one can simultaneously hold "I would prefer going into this machine which is different in non-hedonic ways to the experience machine (in fact, strictly *inferior* from a purely hedonic lens)" and "I would go into the experience machine" without contradiction. The latter doesn't require that hedonism be true; it merely requires that real life sucks badly enough for the experience machine to be preferable.

Given the example of the results machine, could we also consider Novick’s writing to be a critique of consequentialism?

2:10 I can't be the only one who would say yes to that

I think its possible that the 'missing' piece is authenticity. Being fed results, or pleasure is all well and good. But we'd know they weren't real, that they'd been gained illegitimately. I think we experience the same discomfort when we meet people who seem inauthentic in some way. I accept some pain in my real life, for the slimmest of chances that I might experience an authentic win. And as the saying goes... 'You've got to be in it to win it' - If you;re not in the game (experiencing the real world) your chances of an authentic win are 0.

Nozick's assumption that everyone rational would say NO is based mainly on the fact that "Reality" cannot be substituted by a machine with probes connected to your brain, and that sounds perfectly rational indeed. But once we get to the Transformation and Results machines things change I believe, since your experience of reality is not based on your senses (signt, smell, touch,..etc) but in fact based your mind's interpretation add to that the fact that your actions within the machine would actually have results on you and others (Im combining the Transformation and Results machines into one since its just personal or causing results onto others). In that case wouldn't the Transformation and Results machines become actual reality ? Hence rational to say YES to in order to eliminate the pains of current reality (The body) ?

@Exception1

Жыл бұрын

yeah, once he brought up the "transformation machine" I felt like I'd say "yes" to that, and especially when he brought up the "results machine".

The flaw in this argument is that it too narrowly defines pleasure. If you, correctly in my opinion, identify all the reasons for objecting to enter the experience machine as also being "pleasure", then it is clear that people are simply making their decisions using hedonistic methodology. There is "pleasure" derived from doing things. There is "pleasure" derived from being a certain way. There is "pleasure" in making actual contact with reality. These things are "pleasurable" because we give value to these experiences. Experiencing these things gives us satisfaction, which is a form of pleasure. We choose not to enter the experience machine because that is depriving us of the "pleasure" of being in reality.

@sionsmedia8249

2 ай бұрын

From a hedonistic view "reality" is an irrational thing. Your experiences are the only thing that is "real" no matter what the enviroment around you is. If your experiences tell you, you are doing things, then that is real to you. You are not losing any real pleasure experiences in the machine. You would only be losing pleasure from the machine if you knew about reality outside the machine, but the machine only gives you pleasurable experiences so you would not know anything outside the machine once you are inside.

Transformation machine sounds pretty epic, come out all ripped xD Basically like Neo downloading kung fu.

The question shouldn't be if YOU want to be a snail, the question would be if a formless being was given the choice. In that case, the answer is obviously snail. This goes for the other examples too.

Does not the pleasure of authentically experiencing life in the real world qualify as hedonism?

This 'Experience Machine' is literally your mind and your imagination trained into a high degree which can produce any (mental) images and emotions you want at any time. No need for a machine for that.

But how can the results machine possibly function without a connection to reality? Who would I be effecting?

A challenge to the experience machine is that it assumes epistemologically and metaphysically that there is such a thing as real reality, and we want to be in contact with it, and this desire to be in real reality can be subjected to examination like other desires, as he did not address the challenge that wanting to be in contact with real reality is useful for some purpose, which causes us to desire it, and without analysis will cause use to desire it even if it is no longer relevant.

Excellent introduction for a layman like me. But what you are describing is basically a version of The Matrix. And I always wondered why people would not WANT to live in The Matrix as long as they would not know that they are. Come to that :Who says we are not living in some kind of Matrix at the moment? This is not me by the way; there are serious studies about what we actually are and whether our minds form the world we live in. Quantum mechanics(e.g. the topic of entanglement) touches on this more and more. What is reality? Anyway.: I really enjoy this series, moving on to the next instalment now, Thanks!

@HispanusCandor

Жыл бұрын

Yes, however, this is addressed in The Matrix itself. The Architect was proud of Matrix 1.0, which he called "perfect"... but it and the later version 2.0 were "monumental failures" and he theorized it is because humans cannot exist without suffering (it, pleasure alone, didn't feel real - Authenticity) or without the "choice" (Liberty) to be there (2.0). Therefore functional Matrices required 1. Suffering/Authenticity and 2. Choice/Liberty, albeit "at a subconscious level", as proposed by the Oracle, a social intelligence Program. So the Matrix seems to suggest the vast majority of humans would indeed prefer a Nozick type machine -- at least, a world RELATIVELY LESS painful than reality, a postapocalyptic hopeless wasteland -- provided it is their choice. Also, "I know kungfu" is possible due to analogues to the transformation machine.

@RobBaartwijk

Жыл бұрын

@@HispanusCandor Wow! Detailed! I did not mean to compare it to the actual Movie Matrix per se. "Who says we are not living in some kind of Matrix at the moment? " Now do I take the red pill or do I take the blue pill? Choices choices choices... ;)

nowdays we have video games. Some of these games actually resemble the real world and you can explore the world and do all kind of things that can be done in reality. finding friends, solving problems make money and build a personality out of real world. my quastion is, isn't it an experience machine that our philosopher talking about? and we see many people "rational seemingly" choose to live in those imaginary world voluntarily. they are not "doing something " they are not "in contact with real world" but they still seem to generate pleasure and thats enough to go on.

@mithrae4525

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, Nozick wrote this in 1974; his assumptions that folk wouldn't choose the experience machine seem even more of a stretch now than they would have been fifty years ago. In part that's probably because of the uncertainty of big changes (status quo bias as some other commenters have noted), in that you don't really KNOW how much pleasure you'll get from becoming a snail or getting hooked up to a machine, compared with how good your life is now. Seems to me Nozick mistakenly interprets that uncertainty, that reluctance to gamble happiness in the hand for possibly twice as much in the bush, as being about some value other than pleasure/happiness when there's really no basis for doing so. Of course even then plenty of people WOULD be tempted to become a snail if they're not too fond of their current life, but it's a pretty big leap, and to a lesser extent so was the leap from 1970s life to an 'experience machine.' But these days we've already got immersive computer games, VR and cultural references like the Matrix, holodecks on Star Trek etc... plenty of folk would be perfectly comfortable with at least trying out the experience machine, and probably never come out of it.

The only example that i would reject is the snail transformation. All the other ones i would engage on.

10:20 Reminds me one of S. Lem stories

Sign me up to that excellent snail health care lol as a mechanical engineer i had a lot of profs in my day..none grabbed my attention and invoked so much curiousity as Mr Kaplan has.

There is a problem I have with the experience machine counter example; it hinges on our awareness that we are being deprived of something that could be pleasurable. We have a a general learned understanding that artificially created things have a fundamentally imperfect version of something that we want. The knowledge that we are being exposed to an artificial reality taints our bias towards that reality. Instead, we are being deprived of the FULL experience of pleasure by only being exposed to this artificial reality. So, in my mind, I would want to experience new experiences based on the awareness that I have obtained . If it turns out I am aware I am in a simulation, I will be very curious to see how that artificial world matches with real world pleasure.

@tudornaconecinii3609

8 ай бұрын

I don't even think we need to go that abstract to show the downside of the experience machine. Especially considering that many people simply *don't* share the intuition/understanding that artificial experiences have something "missing" from the real deal. There's a much bigger issue: So, for example, in real life you can experience climbing Mount Everest. In the experience machine you can experience a simulated climb of a simulated Mount Everest. This simulated Mount Everest will be perceptually identical to the real deal. Arguments can be made about whether there's something "actually" missing, and I can see people go one way or the other. But there's another thing the experience machine can do, since it can make you experience anything. It can make you experience the belief that you climbed Mount Everest, without you having ever done it, even in a simulated form. When you check your memories for how it felt to climb Mount Everest, you will find nothing, but when you ask yourself if you did, your brain will return "Yes", along with possibly a sense of pride and accomplishment in yourself. That's *really* scary. And while it may not be scary enough to make me refuse to go into the machine (especially if later in life I, say, lose my legs or become blind), it is scary enough that I actively have a preference to go into an experience machine that *denies* me the option than to go into the perfect one. Which is enough to refute the hedonist claim that pleasure and pain are the only things we care about.

The transformation machine! I disagree that most people would reject it.

If these machines all create the consequence you want, are they consequential machines? Is it so important for us to struggle at our imperfect attempts when the results could be so much better with these machines?

I would rather be happy than not, no matter the circumstances.

Comes down to the uncomfortable fact that experience is just a system that gathers data and influences your actions. The effect you have, the things you create, are the only thing your life amounts to. The insipring years traveling the world, sampling the cultures, the foods. It is all worthless if it doesnt lead to something real and beyond yourself.

If you are enjoying your life, you'd say no to the snail offer. If you are suffering in life, you'd likely say yes to the snail offer.

Why is NO the assumed answer..? I'll take the offer. I want to be a snail. Who would not want that. Bad example to find a problem with hedonism, in my very humble opinion. Also, the goal posts keep moving. The scenario starts out perfect, all pleasure and no down side. Then when about to close the deal, it all turns to dust, thus revealing there was actually no pleasure, just illusion. Or the judgement of others that creeps in, the stigma of a junkie, the inferiority of the snail compared to a human. Even the tank is false, not real. This is just self evident, that the illusion of pleasure is not the same as real pleasure. In most of these situations, where the authenticity does not dissolve, I would say yes. Who am I to assume that a human must have more pleasure than a snail?

If I found out that this universe is a simulation, it would not change how I live my life. I don't think humans could ever build a simulation that can compare to the splendor of the real universe and that's why I would reject the experience machine. However if this machine really could give me any pleasure I desire, including that of my cosmological curiosity to study the true nature of the universe, then I don't see any negative difference between it and physical reality and I would gladly use it.

Wait though. As you eluded to in a prior video, pleasure can be an ultimate reason for other reasons (why make money etc). What if our self control in reality yields ultimately to pleasure? Then the experience machines do NOT provide ALL the pleasure

I think the comments are proof that this charming guy (Jeffrey Kaplan I assume) completely missed the mark with his assumptions in this video. I hope he makes another video where he jassumes that we would in fact say yes to becoming this snail. But I guess there wouldn't be much to say because we'd be being consistent. 1:40 - "Presumably the answer is no." - *Wrong presumption.* 1:58 - "I take it you would really say no." - *I'd actually say yes.* 2:00 - "You would think that if anyone said yes they would be doing something irrational." - *How so? I wouldn't think that.* 4:27 - "The fact that you'd be rational - you'd be right - in thinking that it's not in your own best interests to be transformed into a snail" - *Why would a good life as a top dawg in any world be against my interests?* These were my thoughts while watching.

@williamjenkins4913

Жыл бұрын

Remember that He is teaching Nozick here. So it is not Kaplan's incorrect assumptions but Nozick's.

It is irrational to not want to be the snail, and yet, I don't want to. I am wrong. Same with the experience machine. Authenticity of an experience is not something that I can experience and thus it does not matter. It is only encouraged by evolution to believe that the experience machine is bad and I do not care for such things as the moral agency of evolution. I won't go out culling the weak anytime soon either.

Self-Interest is innately tied to pleasure. Therefore, if the idea of being a snail is deemed to not be in your self-interest, regardless of all of the silver platter items that you provide (health care, pretty snails, etc.), the answer will always be no. Additionally, because self-interest is part of pleasure, not wanting to be a snail is not an argument against hedonism, in my opinion. Why would I want to be a snail when being a human is so much better? Generally speaking. Secondly, let's say I was tied to the experience machine, I get a good feeling and love helping my family, even knowing that the machine can recreate that entire experience, I also know that I am not actually helping them, they are off living their own lives. So going back to what I said, it's in my self interest to legitimately make a difference by helping, and because self-interest is tied to pleasure. It still would not be an argument against hedonism, again, in my opinion.

I think the world we are in is a computer game. We are already all plugged into the experience machine.

Pleasure is not the only good thing. "No one would choose to go through life with a child's intellect, even if it were pleasant to do so." - Aristotle Happiness with fulfillment (eudaimonia) is the highest good in life.

The problem with the snail example is that I'm not a snail. My awareness in a snail body would be a nightmare, and no snail mind would be me.

What if we became convinced that all of us were living in a simulated universe? Would our lives thereby become instantly less meaningful? Could we counter that this simulated universe puts us through all the pains, pleasure, self-sacrifice, etc. that a real universe would require of us, and therefore this simulated universe is meaningful? What if we were only temporarily in a simulation machine that could create changes that would carry over into the real world? Think "Groundhog Day" .

If choosing to be turned into an attractive and popular snail is irrational, I don’t want to be rational. Lmao. Seriously though, wouldn’t you need to prove that rationality is more important than perceived pleasure in order to counter the snail argument? I get that a typical person would not want to be a snail, but if someone did hypothetically want that, then would not it be in their best interest to embrace the irrational form of pleasure, if it still means they receive the pleasure that they want? I haven’t finished the video yet so I’m not sure if he goes into more detail with this example, if so I may update this comment, but if that is where he leaves it then I am curious what people think about this point I’m making?

@ineffablecraving8697

Жыл бұрын

Okay, I finished the video, and my statement/question about the snail still stands. That being: if the pleasure is irrational, how does that counter the value of the pleasure? What inherent value exists in rationality that counteracts the value of pleasure? I’d also like to point out that I would choose the experience machine, and I think many other people would as well. Of course many wouldn’t choose it, and I think that just speaks to the idea that different people like different things. I value pleasure more than I value “reality” and so I would choose the machine. Does that make me irrational? If so, again why would irrationality be a bad thing? Another interesting thing to consider is what the life of the person would be like if they didn’t choose the machine. What if their life sucks? Sure, maybe they do experience real pleasure every once in a while, but maybe the majority of their life is filled with pain which would be relieved by choosing the machine? Then would it be rational to choose the machine, if doing so would give them a better perceived life then they could ever dream of having in reality? Obviously if you had to choose between a great life in reality and a great life in a simulation, it’s an easy choice. But even the most “rational” person, when presented with a choice between a miserable but real life or a wonderful fake life, would be tempted to choose the fake one. And many would choose that. I also have an issue with the final point, dismissing the idea that the machine isn’t capable of providing a certain type of pleasure that reality can provide. Is this not the case? Isn’t there pleasure in knowing that your life is real, rather than a simulation? If that isn’t pleasure, what is it? Even if you could be in the simulation and have your memory erased, so you don’t know you are in the simulation, by choosing the simulation you at least for a moment have to engage with the idea that your life won’t be real, and that amount of discomfort would be a detriment to your perceived future pleasure, even if it is just in that moment of deciding. I guess my point is, why is this idea of experiencing reality vs a simulation not a factor of pleasure, when everything else about our experience is? What is the immutable difference between “pleasure” and “the want to be connected to reality”? How is they want different than any other pleasure giving want? I find this subject very interesting and I hope someone reads this and has a viewpoint I haven’t considered. Also, love this whole course! :)

I think that if you didn't know you were hooked up to it it might be perfect. Suffering is caused by thinking your reality should be something else.

Always thought that the original Matrix movie has deep philosophical meaning. I’ll take the red pill. And btw, perhaps we weren’t created simply to experience pleasure, which is why living solely toward that end will not satisfy. Just a thought.

Funny that I fall upon this video when I'm about to start reading "The Anarchy, State&Utopia".

Heroin is loaded because of all the pain involved in that drug. If it had no side effects, you would also get to live your life while it made you happier... Like how anti-depressants (are supposed to) work for depressed people. If your superheroin works like that for everyone, we would perscribe it for everyone... like exercise and working out

@nobodythisisstupid4888

9 ай бұрын

It felt super-loaded as a possible option since I think it fundamentally misunderstands the causes of problems with heroin. It’s not necessarily any physical addictiveness that causes social problems with opioid (or really any drug) addiction (although it certainly can make things harder). There are economic and social barriers that significantly make things worse, and it also seems to misunderstand that negative outcomes of psychological addiction do not rely upon drug mechanism of action but instead on how much it lets you avoid other parts o your life and how much restriction of access to that thing results in psychological distress. You can’t have a hedonistically rational way to turn it down if it is as is described because a side effect free super-heroin would necessarily allow you to still do all the things that normally bring you pleasure with no downside. To say otherwise would mean it is not truly side effect free and some part of the experience machine is replicating the same fundamental causes of psychological addiction that are present in heroin among many other things.

@brotherjongrey9375

9 ай бұрын

@nobodythisisstupid4888 you can not have addiction without negative effects. That's the mechanism for addiction. Patient feels withdrawal. Which is a side effect. And thus, does more in order to fix the withdrawal. =addiction ...... "doing" water doesn't have negative side effects, It's just good for you and it makes you feel good. Nobody is calling you an addict because you feel the lack of water in your system and you want more

.returning to the "super snail lifestyle" scenario , why not just ask instead this: " if you were given unlimited power/ownership/knowledge/love/friendship/family/health etc, would you take it ?"

Nozick, in here, also attacks Utilitarianism and Pragmatism. And in my opinion he is right.

I'm hoping that people think about this thought experiment before signing up to the Metaverse...

There is something good for us that isn’t pleasure it’s pain. Human beings need pain and stress in order to learn and grow. Imagine this. A human being that is up in space with no gravity can just float around and have no stress on his body. Must be nice right? Meanwhile without the gravity putting stress on his bones they will eventually dissolve and when under any pressure just fracture. Bones require gravity in order to stay strong. Same goes for everything in life humans require pain and stress in order to grow and succeed and achieve and this leads to confidence and pleasure.

Idk I'd probably have to be talked out of the machines hahah 😅 I guess I'm irrational. But what wasn't clear atleast to me, is if it was a permanent transition (entering each machine) in that case no I would not enter ...

@nobodythisisstupid4888

9 ай бұрын

That’s not clear to me either because if so, the super heroin example doesn’t make much sense to me. If you care about the social consequences of out of control drug use, and the machine requires you to enter indefinitely, then you can’t have a super-heroin that has no side effects like it was described in the video. That would be consciously rejecting the importance of all social relations and if so, there is no need for it to be super-heroin, it could be just fine as regular heroin since its effectively not going to have any downsides with constant supply and you giving up all social life. In fact, if you look at the machine that makes you enter forever, then it would probably be much more rational to choose to just do heroin over the super-heroin because then you can both live a life containing normal human pleasures, and you could do heroin.

I don't get it, I would totally connect to the pleasure machine, even without the transformation part. Maybe because I'm an existential nihilist. IDC about changing the world or doing the actual thing, plus the pleasure machine would be way better than reality (like skydiving without possibility of death or stroke, or unprotected sex without possibility of STDs). I frequently dream with worlds where people is nice and the world is not a hostile place, and sometime I wish i wouldn't wake up from those dreams. The premises against the machine seem off to me, IDC about doing the actual thing but get pleasure or fun of doing the thing. Being a certain way you would technically be in that virtual reality the way you want. And finally, no interest on making actual contact with reality...so uuhmmm, any plans on building this machine soon, is there a wait list? lol

I have a question regarding the conclusion: Couldn’t it be true that the machine give you every pleasure AND there is not more important things outside of pleasure BUT you decline the offer anyway just because of the PAIN you feel in the moment you decide that you won’t experience reality? ..okay I realized that might be the same thing you said, but as a double negative. But couldn’t you still argue that hedonism is true, but thinking about reality is pain? So forcing a person into this machine is “good” for the person, because only the pain he feels about not living in reality (for whatever reason) is stopping him from living a pleasurable (“good”) life? So asking someone if they want to live in reality is in itself paradox because the person can’t overcome the initial pain of saying yes? ..Because of his illogical wish to stay in reality? Or another point of view, the argument in this video is that hedonism is wrong because people would decide against pleasure. Can’t hedonism be true like a math formula even when people are disagreeing (to go into the machine)? After all hedonism says whats a good life, but not what people deem a good life, right?

the experience machine assumes everyone's intuition is the same, and reality is well, real, heroin may not be a nice experience once you get addicted on it and require increasing amounts of it, but there lies the issue, the very fact that you do not feel happy after a while, I would assume the experience machine creates experiences more tangible and with real life scenarios, and also that it can indeed somehow deal with the desensitising to pleasure

what might the hedonist respond to the experience machine?

@thelukesternater

2 жыл бұрын

Smoke meth everyday

Where's the dotted line?

As a person who does not read much philosophy I have some remarks about this. Hedonism as an absolute truth is clearly not helpful as it can be dismissed quite easily as we have seen in some examples. To take hedonism as an absolute truth does not look to be useful, so is it then not better to extract the valuable wisdom out of the theory? For example, searching for pleasure is good for you most of the time but there are exceptions. Also, I could be wrong but is it also not the case that you derive pleasure through goal setting and that you experience good emotions in relation to approaching the personal goal you have? Progress towards the goal will give you dopamine and that will give you pleasure. So I guess I am refering to neurology and psychology in a way. I like this as a thought experiment to interact with the concept of pleasure and I like thinking about it so maybe I am missing the point. Again, I am not experienced in these subjects so I would be happy if someone would comment on this.

I find it strange that the matrix wasn't brought up in this video

Would you hook up to the John Malkovich machine for a day?

I wouldnt say taking the deal to have the best snail life is irrational... some people just really have sad lives right now... although I dont think most people would/should reasonably take the deal. But plenty of people wish they had the life of their cats or such

@nobodythisisstupid4888

9 ай бұрын

I also find it kinda weird that you can confidently assert that a snail feels any less pleasure than a person can. It’s an assumption about humans that because they are seemingly more advanced, that they necessarily are able to experience more pleasure. Ultimately you cannot form a hedonistically rational argument for or against being a snail with a good life simply because you have no idea how pleasure will be perceived by a snail. Maybe their simpler nervous system means it is more easily completely consumed in the feeling of pleasure? Maybe it feels lower peaks of pleasure but more consistently? Maybe what we think is a happy life for a snail is miserable? Maybe they don’t feel pleasure at all? It’s unknowable and kinda weird to me to try to rationally discuss this without realizing that your assessment on what is more pleasurable is extremely dependent on other values about perception, consciousness, etc.

I immediately said yes the first time you asked 😭

I’m sorry, who isn’t going into these machines? Wouldn’t it be considered rational to get into the transformation and results machines? They do have an affect on reality.

I want to be snail now. Please end my suffering!

Not taking the Journey, is what you get with the machines.

So he can write reversed backward?

I was with Nozick until we got to the results machine, although super-heroin seems like something most people would say yes to, I see little to no difference between the results machine and reality. The only value I can imagine a person would say is missing in the results machine is autonomy, and human autonomy is actually not necessarily a reality, free will seems to not be true or at least not provable. If there is no free will, there is no autonomy and the results machine is exactly like reality or we are already living in some sort of results machine.

I would become a snail in a heartbeat, if I didn't have a spouse and kids that rely on me. Even if I held no memory, the decision to become a snail would factor them in and my life of bliss wouldn't be worth their life without me. Unless I somehow found out they'd genuinely be better off without me of course. Same for the super heroine. Saying it's irrational to take the super heroine because you may miss out on other goods doesn't really pose a problem for hedonism. This, like the snail has drawbacks because others suffer and/or you suffer missing things, but a drawback or negative apect doesn't make it bad overall. The experience machine is always a wild one too, but ultimately it follows the prior 2. The inverse machine also sheds light that the fomo of missing it on what's experienced already. We derive great pleasure from finishing what we start and the snail, heroine, and machine all deny these. So it's possible none of them are actually the greatest pleasure. I think the machine issues against hedonism falls apart when the inverse is applied. One day someone in a conversation about the machine asks "what if you found out you were in the machine right now, would you want to be woken up?" To this most people say no. Just imagine it yourself for anyone reading. What if at the end of this, it convinced you that you were in a machine right now and the whole life you remember is the machine. Would you end it for a life that will almost certainly be worse? After all the point of the machine was to make a better experience for you, so "reality" will be worse.

Can 'doing things,' 'being a certain way,' and 'making actual contact with reality,' all not in-and-of-themselves be forms of pleasure? It seems to me that if someone were to wish all these things, it would be because they find pleasure in them.

@moirreym8611

11 ай бұрын

Hedonism states that only pleasure is good, so never mind. I believe negative things may and can transform an individual for the better, especially when they are in a mindset of endurance towards such possible scenarios or pains, since they would advance certain virtues such as temperance, humility, and so forth (the endurance of pain, unfortunate scenarios or circumstances).

What if freedom is the greatest pleasure?

I would've said yes to all of those machines.

But who’s to say we aren’t already plugged in to a machine that’s giving us all these experiences? Local realism has been proven to be false, therefore, things outside of our perceptual reality don’t exist until we render them. And perhaps, to make it interesting, the people who created this machine included painful experiences. Or maybe the argument that one can only experience true pleasure by knowing and experiencing it’s opposite which is deep pain is true. So maybe we are in a pleasure machine but the trade off is, if you want to experience deep pleasure you must know pain and suffering.

@user-pu6pn8vt5d

4 ай бұрын

If our reality isn't reality, then we have absolutely no indication of what is reality. All logic we can apply to it comes from our own reality. There are infinite possibilities for alternative truths to the one you perceive, thus a 0% chance that your guess is the correct one, unless you truly know something outside of our reality. Also, there are definitely more pleasurable experiences than our reality. More meaningful relationships, better weather, less oppressive governments, magic, a better position in life... Looking at the random assortment of painful, pleasurable, and meaningless events in your life and believing they must've all been designed to benefit you is nothing short of denial.

Maybe there's something in the idea that it's necessary to be of some actual value, according to some valid standard of value, or perhaps according to what one, for whatever reason values, just personally - so if you're Flash Gordon you want to be loyal, and would count yourself worthless if you weren't, but if you were the Khan the Merciless, you'd want to be more merciless, not necessarily for the pleasure this would obviously give you, but because to lack mercilessness is to lack "worth"? The transformation machine is only a convincingly better extension to the pleasure machine if there's some sense of intrinsic "worthiness" that goes with the transformation. (And it implicitly commences with a certain amount of intrinsic worthlessness of one's current state of being, since otherwise why bother transforming?) It seems to touch the edges of "secular Sin" to me. I think that's to do with "virtue"? Get bigger muscles then die. What's the difference, temporally, between that and getting scrawny or fat, then dying? The end result is exactly the same. (This is looking like a different issue, and I don't know what to make of it.)