Nozick's Experience Machine

[KevinDW78]

I found this exchange in my online philosophy class to be amusing, so I thought I would share.

TOPIC:

Robert Nozick developed a thought experiment in his book, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" intended to tell us something about hedonistic moral theories (utilitarianism is generally regarded as hedonistic). Here's the thought experiment: imagine neuropsychologists have invented an experience machine that can give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences that we can possibly want---they have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain in order to induce pleasurable experiences. Hooked up to such a machine, we would not be able to tell that these experiences were not veridical. The question, then, is, if you were given the choice, would you choose the machine over real life? Explain why or why not. Does such a thought experiment tell us anything about hedonistic moral theories? What?

MY RESPONSE:

I would not choose to be hooked up to Nozick’s hypothetical machine. The reason for this is that it is unreal. What’s more, the point of life is not to simply feel pleasure. The point of life, a dictated by observation of nature, is to live as Man qua Man – i.e. to live as a rational being, using the work of one’s mind to productively live. It is not enough to simply exist as Nozick’s machine would allow. There is no productive value to existing; no accomplishment to be made. To simply exist is to deny man’s nature and volition and instead to choose to live a life no better than that of a bacterium. To be specific, there is nothing immoral about choosing the machine, but to do so is to choose to be irrational by denying man’s nature to exist as a volitional, thinking, being who must think in order to stay alive.

INSTRUCTOR:

Here's what the "objectivist" post assumes (in a bad way):

1. It has made sense of the term 'unreal'.

2. It has a substantial account of 'the point of life'.

3. That the "point of life" can be "dictated by observation". As though there is something intrinsically rational to living a life devoted to productive living (whatever that means).

4. That the value of existing is to be found in producing (again, how 'producing' is to be cashed out is wholly ambiguous and vague).

5. Nozick's experience machine saddles him with a commitment to mere existence.

6. That denying "man's nature" (whatever that means) is irrational (whatever that means).

Notice also that the suggestion that a person must think to stay alive is blatantly false. There is no connection between thinking and living, unless one presupposes a certain conception of what it is to be alive.

"irrational (whatever that means)" lol that just makes me laugh.

Edited July 16, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Rounin]

If the machine could successfully emulate a real and fulfilling life, filled with real challenges and simulated people with complete personalities and desires of their own, one could ask whether the machine itself constituted a separate world in its own right. It would still have to be weighed against the trauma of leaving behind one's current life, though. Even if one could simulate all one's friends and relatives inside the machine, one would still know that they existed on the outside.

[BrassDragon]

I would not choose to be hooked up to Nozick’s hypothetical machine. The reason for this is that it is unreal.

That's a reason?

What’s more, the point of life is not to simply feel pleasure. The point of life, a dictated by observation of nature, is to live as Man qua Man – i.e. to live as a rational being, using the work of one’s mind to productively live.

Why? How does observation "dictate" the point of life?

It is not enough to simply exist as Nozick’s machine would allow. There is no productive value to existing; no accomplishment to be made.

Why is it necessary to accomplish?

To simply exist is to deny man’s nature and volition and instead to choose to live a life no better than that of a bacterium.

You haven't convinced me on man's nature yet.

To be specific, there is nothing immoral about choosing the machine, but to do so is to choose to be irrational by denying man’s nature to exist as a volitional, thinking, being who must think in order to stay alive.

Your statement that there is nothing immoral about choosing the machine doesn't seem to sync up well with the rest of what you've said.