Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Press Kit
  • Philosophy
    • First Edition >
      • Tenets
      • Know Thyself
      • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
        • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
        • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
        • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
        • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
      • Evolution 101
      • Philosophy 101
    • Later Works >
      • Academic Paper >
        • Further FAQs
      • Greatest Blog Hits
      • Other Publications
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Shop

Response to Thought Experiment 98: The Experience Machine

7/7/2017

1 Comment

 
I'll be honest, Ive already done a lot of heavy philosophising this week (see the extensive comments going on about thought experiment 97), so I'm feeling pretty tired of thinking hard. Wouldn't it be nice to have Calgon take me away so I could "lose myself in luxury" and just float in a tub all day? Or better yet, maybe an immersive machine could take care of me so I'd never get prune fingers or have to deal with the difficulties of life ever again! That's what this week's thought experiment is offering.

--------------------------------------------------
     Robert had been sitting in front of the consent form for two hours and still he did not know whether to sign it or shred it. His choice was between two futures.
     In one, his prospects were bleak and the chances of realising his dreams slim. In the other, he would be a famous rock star guaranteed to be kept permanently happy. Not much of a choice, you might think. But whereas the first life would be in the real world, the second would be entirely within the experience machine.
     This device enables you to live the whole of your life in a virtual-reality environment. All your experiences are designed to make you happier and more satisfied. But crucially, once in the machine you have no idea that you are not in the real world, nor that what is happening to you has been designed to meet your needs. It seems you are living an ordinary life in an ordinary world: it is just that in this life, you are one of the winners for whom everything seems to go right.
     Robert knows that once he is in the machine, life will be great. But still, something about its phoniness makes him hesitate to sign the form that will take him to this paradise.

Source: Chapter 3 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick, 1974.

Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 292.
---------------------------------------------------


I've heard the University of Pennsylvania positive psychology professor Scott Barry Kauffman say in his Psychology Podcast that his students overwhelmingly reject this choice, but I couldn't find anyone sharing their data about this to back it up. I did find facts about an inverted thought experiment though, which was developed to see if maybe people just prefer to stay wherever they currently are. In the inverted experiment, you are asked what you would do if someone came to you now and said everything you currently remember has actually been a simulation and you can choose to either continue on (this explanation will be wiped from your memory of course), or you can choose to go back to your "real world." Depending on whether that real world was then described as a positive, neutral, or negative change, the results of the survey varied quite dramatically. This was discussed in a paper published in Ethical Perspectives in 2011 titled, "Can We Test the Experience Machine", where the author Basil Smith also concluded with this:

...we cannot compare actual survey responses and (never occuring) confronted reactions. Generally, this suggests that experimental philosophy is limited, in that certain thought experiments cannot be tested at all. Perhaps this result entails that these thought experiments are themselves useless, and serve only to mislead. But the point here is simply that experimental philosophy should recognize this limit."

I agree with this conclusion about experimental philosophy. Listening to the public's opinions on contradictory moral urges doesn't necessarily tell you what is right, and it's not clear that our reactions to imaginary thought experiments would really match our emotional reactions in real life anyway. So if the empirical data on these experience machine experiments doesn't tell us much, what are we supposed to learn from them in theory? Well, the Wikipedia entry for the Experience Machine says that:

It is one of the best known attempts to refute ethical hedonism. ... 
The argument is along these lines:
  • P1: 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 not to do x rather than y.
  • P2: We will experience more pleasure if we plug into the experience machine than if we do not plug into the experience machine.
  • C1: 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)
  • P3: We have reason not to plug into the experience machine.
  • C2: Experiencing as much pleasure as we can is not all that matters to us.
​
Of course, "experiencing as much pleasure as we can" is not what evolutionary philosophy is based upon, so I share this disagreement with ethical hedonism. During my long post about pain in response to thought experiment 68, I quoted an excellent reader comment that speaks to why pure hedonism isn't enough.

Pain is a survival mechanism to bring priority awareness of bodily damage to conscious thought to facilitate corrective action. It's essential to survival for all animate life, insects included. Depending on severity it overrides other brain processes as an emergency signal for needed avoidance action.

I find this somewhat related to the answer that
 Mike (the author of the Self Aware Patterns website) provided in the comments section of my post on Monday for this thought experiment. He wrote:

I wouldn't sign. Not because I like suffering or see any inherent virtue in it, but because I think the best prospects for long term survival and well being lie in dealing with the real world, and I wouldn't trust any assurances that the experience machine would protect me from anything going wrong in that outer world.

So while Nozick gave three of his own reasons not to plug into the machine — 1. We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them. 2. We want to be a certain sort of person. 3. Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality. — I think these readers' evolutionary perspectives point to the best reason.

In the real world, feelings of pleasure are reliable guides towards survival. They may only be focused on the short-term, however, which is why we have also developed some semblance of free will that allows us to choose to do temporarily painful things in service of a greater goal or later pleasure. But the experience machine in this thought experiment would remove us from the real world and just give us pleasure for the sake of pleasure. In the machine, pleasure would no longer guide us towards or away from anything; it would just be. But we should reject this because pleasure is merely a proximate goal in service of an ultimate goal. Pleasure and pain are only instrumental; they are not intrinsically or inherently valuable or costly on their own. The experience machine removes us from striving for survival—the ultimate goal for life—and so we ought not to sign up for it. Our hesitations to do so are more evidence that our intuitions are guided by our conscious or unconscious attraction towards truly meaningful goals.
1 Comment
Disagreeable Me
7/8/2017 12:02:28 pm

Hi Ed,

Starting from where you come from, that's a good analysis.

I'm not as concerned with biological survival as the primary goal, so my analysis would be a little different. There's no guarantees of survival either way, so I would take it as a given that I am as likely to survive in the machine as outside, otherwise we're comparing apples to oranges.

For me, "pleasure" is the primary goal, although that's far too narrow a word for the more encompassing goal of eudaimonia, the contentment and happiness that comes from a life well lived. I don't think that living in a simulation is necessarily a barrier to eudaimonia, though it would be if it just gave you everything you wanted without personal effort or development.

I'm a gamer -- my preferred way to spend my free time is in virtual worlds not all that unlike that of the experience machine. In games you usually have a choice of difficulty level -- you can set it to easy to just have the experiences, to be a tourist in a virtual world and let the story unfold effortlessly. You can also set it to hard, so that you cannot progress without developing new skills and understanding. Depending on the game, and depending on whether I value and enjoy the personal development and skills the game has the potential to offer, I might choose either option. But a life lived on permanent easy mode would not appeal to me.

So what turns me off Nozick's thought experiment is not so much that I value the real world, really doing a thing, but that the mere experience of being a rock star without challenge would not be satisfying. I would not get all that much pleasure out of it. But an experience machine that was set up to give me the opportunity to develop talent and skills within the context of a rock star simulation might be a different story.

So, on Nozick's specific points:

> 1. We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.

True, with some caveats.

It should also be remembered that sometimes the experience is as valuable as the thing itself, because what we value is sometimes just the experience. The experience of being on a rollercoaster is as good as actually being on a rollercoaster.

Also, I would say that a simulation of a challenging task might be as satisfying as the challenging task itself as long as it is similarly challenging. A mere rock star experience is not satisfying, but living out a life in a virtual world much like this one where nothing is guaranteed, and managing to become a rock star in that world by dint of your own effort and talent might indeed be satisfying. But this is because the experience of being a rock star without the experience of overcoming genuine challenge is not really the same experience at all. It's still experience that matters, but that experience is made up of more than sensory input. A full experience must also include the experience of internal struggles and development.

> 2. We want to be a certain sort of person.

True. But the right simulation might also have the potential to allow you to be that certain sort of person.

> 3. Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality.

Unlike Nozick, this does not concern me much, as long as that reality is sufficiently compelling and rich. The problem I have with man made realities is that as a practical matter they usually aren't sufficiently compelling to absorb one for more than a few hundred hours of play. That's largely a resources/technology/imagination problem. The problem is not simply the fact that they were made by man.

On experimental philosophy, I think it's worthwhile to check philosophical definitions of intuitive common sense concepts (such as knowledge, truth, existence) against usage and common sense, because that can be the only sensible measure of whether the definition is capturing what it purports to.

On the other hand, if a technical philosophical definition (such as supervention, dialectic, ipseity) is knowingly and deliberately technical and arcane and is not necessarily intended to capture any common sense concepts, then experimental philosophy is not of much use. Likewise, experimental philosophy is not useful for testing philosophical arguments (except insofar as those arguments relate to the definition of common sense concepts).

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Stay in Touch

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Some Blogs I Follow

    The Book Designer
    The Brooks Blog
    The Creative Penn
    Edge.org
    Evolving Thoughts
    Evolution This View of Life
    Gone Public
    Sam Harris
    Michele Gibney
    Jonathan Martin - 21k12
    Morality's Random Walk
    Ockham's Beard
    Philosophy Bites
    Rationally Speaking
    Reason and Meaning
    Rogue Neuron
    Talking Philosophy
    Rob Wray

    Blog Directory & Business Pages at OnToplist.com

    Blogarama - The Blog Directory
    blog directoryagence web
    Submit Blog & RSS Feeds
    Blogs lists and reviews
    My Zimbio
    Submit Blog Directory
    The SEO King
    Blog Directory
    DirectoryBlogs
    Click to set custom HTML
    Picture

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.