Philosopher Robert Nozick proposed the following thought experiment:
Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, pre-programming your life's experiences?... Of course, while in the tank, you won't know that you're there; you'll think it's all actually happening. . . . Would you plug in? What else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?
So /lit/, would you?
in a heartbeat
criticisms of the experience machine are retarded
>>7400782
if the machine could stimulate or manipulate the brain and our memories in such a way that you forget you ever entered/heard about the machine then yes
How people can still talk about evil demon/brain in vat is beyond me
But I'm even more puzzled about how some people still manage to impress others with new versions of this thought expriment
Even supposing that it was safe (if someone told me to enter what's essentially a mind control machine, I'd have to be mentally retarded to trust him not to just brainwash me or use me for experimentation), I still wouldn't do it simply because I don't trust in my ability (or any other person's for that matter) to design a world and a life as complex, interesting and enjoyable as the real one.
>>7400856
This isn't an epistemic thought experiment, it's an ethical one, it's asking what kind of life do you value?
>>7400782
No. Basically people don't know what they want. Assume for a moment that you really enjoy reading and today it has given you greater pleasure than you ever had. However, five years ago your greatest pleasure came from swimming. But that was because reading wasn't something that you had yourself experienced.
If you plug yourself in the experience machine you will never know if the preprogramming that you have entered would lead to the greatest possible happiness because of your own fallibility. If we are able to program the machine on demand then there is nothing to say that this would make us happy either - most likely it would lead to either anhedonia (modern depression) or drug addiction to stimulants.
>>7400782
No, it could turn into the worst nightmare.
But we will never know if we already are plugged.
>>7400782
Nope. I'm not naive enough to think I'll have any great impact on the world, but neither would I choose to definitely have no effect on anyone else's life ever again. Unless maybe I was horribly depressed or limbless or something.
>>7400904
This.
Also people don't really want their lives to be perfect and happy all the time. We think that this is our primary goal in life but we value suffering just as much if not more than happiness.
If I desire to create a mathematical proof that can be verified logically, the machine has no way of supplying me the answer and must either break itself or kill me.
>>7400859
>I'd have to be mentally retarded to trust him
Also, there's this.
>>7400782
I put this to my gf a while a back and she said no. She then got upset when I told her that I would.
>>7400782
same question was asked in first class of philosophy 101.
Only 5% (including me) of the 200ish students wanted to plug in. The others mentioned that it would 'take away authenticity and that real experiences are better'
Kind of a non-argument though, since you would not even be aware that you'd be plugged into a machine.
>>7400782
Would depend on my prospects in real life.
From within the machine I wouldn't have control on the outside. What if the guy that plugs me in changes the settings after I'm down?
I'd plug myself if I was already doomed, though.
I go to bed each night and dream, so yes.
>>7401121
>real experiences are better
They should just have failed the course then and there.
>>7400782
what a fuckin non-argument. Either way, what's the goddamn difference? So irrelevent
Would I want to use a machine that would allow me to experience a more enjoyable life?
How could anyone say no? Of course I'd plug in.
>>7401364
>bumping a dead thread to call it pointless
>>7401270
But do you go to bed for the dream?
>>7400823
>Nozick was a hack.
How?
>>7401452
Because he was BTFO by Rawls.
>>7401456
>Because he was BTFO by Rawls.
Kek
Rawls was BTFO on several fronts, including by Nozick
Don't take my opinion as fact, as I never bothered to look super deep into the controversy, but him 'losing' the debate is contrary to everything I've heard on the matter.
>>7401456
It was pretty much the opposite. Nozick (among others) criticized Rawls' Theory of Justice, Rawls remained silent until now.
>>7401472
>Rawls remained silent until now.
nice
>>7400945
WEOW LAD, can you explain a bit more here
>We think that this is our primary goal in life but we value suffering just as much if not more than happiness.
How could you fit so many spooks in one single sentence?
>>7401478
> Peter Singer
into the trash it goes
no, but only on the basis that in the scenario I am vulnerable to abuse within the VR. I think anyone who finds it objectionable on principle is probably a pronatalist baka
>>7401121
>Kind of a non-argument though, since you would not even be aware that you'd be plugged into a machine
No, because you're fully aware at the moment you make the choice. You're consciously turning your back on reality.
>>7401475
Not that guy, but it's like critiquing Nietzsche for his "active forgetfulness" principle. Rather than constantly letting go of bad thoughts, regrets, guilt, bereavement and so forth, we can do something else and confront these negative emotions because we can actually learn something from them and become a better person through them. If we immediately ignore these negative thoughts and emotions then we're not even really being a person. It is healthy to suffer from time to time because that is how humans naturally develop.
I wouldn't say we VALUE suffering, but it does a lot for people to become better.
>>7400782
No, cause i would be to inclined to make my life into a tragedy.
Cant trust anyone, not even myself.
>>7400782
Hows this a thought experiment. Its just a stupid yes or no question.
To all these idiots saying, 'but suffering is important to the human experience',you do realise that the thought experiment allows you to determine exactly what you feel in the experience machine? I.e suffering as well as pleasure.
I feel like you've completely missed the point of the question, which is to ask whether there is there anymore to existence (and so 'reality') than our internal experience?
>Nozick confirmed for stealing plot from Rick & Morty
Yes, such a device would be the grandest achievement of humanity. If such a thing is made I would support even nuclear war if it means that every human alive is plugged in to something like this
