tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post5592226278233750084..comments2023-07-18T08:00:22.009-05:00Comments on Steinblog: Nozick's Experience Machine Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-22316967318835404432013-04-05T23:02:45.128-05:002013-04-05T23:02:45.128-05:00Stephens,
Thanks for the comments. I hope to try ...Stephens,<br /><br />Thanks for the comments. I hope to try and share my answers to your questions. <br /><br />For your first question: What if people are simply irrational? They really would value the pleasure from the machine more than real life...they are simply blind to this fact?<br /><br />Here’s what I think. First of all, I don’t think that if someone value the pleasure from the machine more than real life would mean they are irrational. But we cannot easily discuss this for you can imagine how we would easily get very messy with what count as rational, and whether rational is always what we should choose to do. That aside, if someone really values the pleasure from the machine more than real life, I don’t think that proves anything too important. As I said in the post, I think people can be mistaken, and a descriptive fact (or observation) like this shouldn’t have the power to prove or disprove any prescriptive claims. That said, it might be a supporting evidence for a descriptive hedonism claim.<br /><br />For your second question: What if people are mistaken when they put value in living in the here and now (real world)?<br /><br />I actually do think that people are quite mistaken (or at least, partly mistaken/have some bad reasons) in putting intrinsic value in living in the here and now. And I think if people are mistaken when they put value in living in the here and now (real world), then it shows that they “should” enter the machine. But I do not think it would necessarily show that hedonism is true. I want to expand on this in a second post (or comment) that I’m still working on. <br />David C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-21310379726903960462013-04-05T22:36:43.928-05:002013-04-05T22:36:43.928-05:00Chelsea,
I share Stephens' puzzlement on why ...Chelsea,<br /><br />I share Stephens' puzzlement on why would you believe the experience machine could only offer a life of lower pleasures, while a "real life" can enjoy higher pleasures?<br /><br />If you are thinking about Mill's examples of lower and higher pleasures, I think the distinction between this two should not pose any problem to the experience machine. For Mill, as it seems to me, lower pleasures are satisfied by doing things like eating or playing video games, while higher pleasures are satisfied by doing things like reading philosophy or enjoying high art. If this understanding of mine is correct, then I’m sure the experience machine will be able to stimulate such things as reading philosophy and enjoying high art. And therefore, the experience machine is able to generate higher pleasure. So now, both the machine and the “real life” can generate higher pleasure. And by definition, life in the machine should be more pleasurable. If this is the case, do you think it would undermine your reason of not entering the machine?<br /><br />Maybe one way to back up your reasons of not entering the machine is, like Stephen suggested, refer to the importance of “really living”. This is also going along Nozick’s positive point. David C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-8207611006757783992013-04-04T16:55:12.132-05:002013-04-04T16:55:12.132-05:00I personally think that the only thing the machine...I personally think that the only thing the machine can't possibly offer is a real impact on the real world. By that I mean, the machine might make me think that I am having an affect on the world, but that wouldn't be actually the case.<br />Say, in the actual world, I manage to talk someone out of committing suicide and I have thus made some important impact on the world (ie. something I value). The experience machine could simulate this experience, of course, but it isn't an actual impact on the actual world. If I died tomorrow in the machine, the person whose life I saved would not continue on in their life because it never existed. My simulated impact dies when I die. I don't leave behind some "dream world Cassy" impact on the world. Point being, if I value leaving some sort of mark on the world that supersedes my mortality, then it seems I would not want to enter a machine that would render me essentially dead to the actual world.<br /><br />I think this holds because the question is not whether or not I want to STAY in an experience machine that I'm already in; the question is if I will opt to enter one to begin with. I'm conscious of my giving up my ability to actually accomplish real things, and I think this is a leap I would not want to make. This is why I think that someone who values having a "real impact on the world" (whatever that means for them individually) would choose not to enter the machine in the first place.Cassy K.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-91459222866053904402013-04-03T18:43:35.994-05:002013-04-03T18:43:35.994-05:00All in all, I really enjoyed this post. It is an ...All in all, I really enjoyed this post. It is an excellent discussion and analysis of the "experience machine" conundrum. My remaining questions are the following:<br /><br />What if people are simply irrational? They really would value the pleasure from the machine more than real life...they are simply blind to this fact?<br /><br />What if people are mistaken when they put value in living in the here and now (real world)?<br /><br /><br /><br />As for the comment above, I do not quite understand why the machine offers a lifetime of lesser pleasures, and not a life similar to this life, with higher pleasures dispersed throughout our lives. Even if we go as far as to say that our current lives couldn't be any more pleasureful on the whole (our experiences of pain and sadness only exist to give us the opportunity to appreciate pleasure/happiness), someone could turn around and say "Aha! Then perhaps we're in the machine already!" This would by no means stand as proof that we ARE in such an experience machine, but I think it stands to show that we are not justified in believing that NOT entering the machine should be chosen due to the value of truth and ACTUALLY living in the real world. If we were to be mistaken about what the real world is, then we would be mistaken in our reasoning for not entering the machine.JPH Stephensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-60229914912583105422013-03-25T18:03:29.301-05:002013-03-25T18:03:29.301-05:00What about higher versus lower pleasures? I believ...What about higher versus lower pleasures? I believe this is from Mills' 'Hedonism'. The experience machine is asking its participants to have a lifetime of lesser pleasures, while a normal life (on average) is filled with less numerous but more potent higher pleasures. I'm saying the experience machine is lesser pleasure mostly because of my own beliefs. This machine fabricates experiences so what one is learning in this machine is actual knowledge. I think this separation would make Nozick's view on hedonism being a negative thing null. Those who are hedonists AND seek higher pleasure would say "No way jose," to the experience machine. Chelsea R.noreply@blogger.com