{"id":48105,"date":"2023-10-12T16:49:04","date_gmt":"2023-10-12T13:49:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lecturesbureau.gr\/1\/?p=48105"},"modified":"2023-10-12T16:49:04","modified_gmt":"2023-10-12T13:49:04","slug":"would-you-plug-in-to-a-permanent-pleasure-machine-robert-nozicks-experience-machine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lecturesbureau.gr\/1\/would-you-plug-in-to-a-permanent-pleasure-machine-robert-nozicks-experience-machine\/?lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Would you plug in to a permanent pleasure machine? \u2013 Robert Nozick’s Experience Machine"},"content":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0experience machine<\/b>\u00a0or\u00a0pleasure machine<\/b> is a thought experiment put forward by philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State and Utopia.<\/i> It is an attempt to refute ethical hedonism by imagining a choice between everyday reality and an apparently preferable simulated reality.<\/p>\n

A primary thesis of hedonism is that “pleasure is the good”, which leads to the argument that any component of life that is not pleasurable does nothing directly to increase one’s well-being. This is a view held by many value theorists, but most famously by some classical utilitarians. Nozick attacks the thesis by means of a thought experiment. If he can show that there is something other than pleasure that has value and thereby increases well-being, then hedonism is refuted.<\/p>\n

The thought experiment<\/span><\/h2>\n

Nozick describes a machine that could provide whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences a subject could want. In this thought experiment, psychologists have figured out a way to stimulate a person’s brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those they would have apart from the machine. He then asks, if given the choice, would the subject prefer the machine to real life?<\/p>\n

Nozick also believes that if pleasure were the only intrinsic value, people would have an overriding reason to be hooked up to an “experience machine,” which would produce favorable sensations.<\/p>\n

The argument<\/span><\/h3>\n

The argument is along these lines:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Premise 1: If experiencing as much pleasure as we can is all that matters to us, then if we will experience more pleasure by doing x than by doing y, we have no reason to do y rather than x.<\/li>\n
  • Premise 2: We will experience more pleasure if we plug into the experience machine than if we do not plug into the experience machine.<\/li>\n
  • Conclusion 1: If all that matters to us is that we experience as much pleasure as we can, then we have no reason not to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)<\/li>\n
  • Premise 3: We have reason not to plug into the experience machine.<\/li>\n
  • Conclusion 2: Experiencing as much pleasure as we can is not all that matters to us. (C1&P3, by Modus Tollens)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Reasons not to plug in<\/span><\/h3>\n

    Nozick provides three reasons not to plug into the machine.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. We want to<\/i>\u00a0do\u00a0certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.<\/i>\n
        \n
      • “It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them.”<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
      • We want to<\/i>\u00a0be\u00a0a certain sort of person.<\/i>\n
          \n
        • “Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob.”\u00a0<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
        • Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make).<\/i>\n
            \n
          • “There is no\u00a0actual<\/i>\u00a0contact with any deeper reality, though the experience of it can be simulated.”\u00a0<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Additionally<\/span><\/h3>\n

            These are not quoted by Nozick himself, but rather other philosophers who have come up with or shared additional reasons.<\/p>\n