PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Hedonism and The Experience Machine [HD]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2014
- What makes our life go best? Is being happy all that matters? Is a life of blissful ignorance a good life? Or is there more to a good life than this? In this Wireless Philosophy video, Richard Rowland (University of Oxford) discusses whether we should take the blue pill in 'hedonism and the experience machine’.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/Fip9/
![PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Mind-Body Dualism [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AMTMtWHclKo/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Mind-Body Dualism [HD]](/img/tr.png)
There is a mistake in your initial reasoning. Keeping a promise to friend in the long run actually benefits you, which opens the way for friendship and mutual trust that is helpfull in avoiding pain in the future. Eating unhealthy food is also causing pain in the future so these examples are not disproving the validity of hedonism!
It is true that, in the long run, those things would be of more benefit to you; however, the video discusses hedonism, which has an emphasis on bodily, and thus immediate, pleasure. The form of pleasure you are addressing seems to have more in common with epicureanism. The two are often conflated, however, so it's a pretty common mistake.
@@hillariousme You're thinking of folk hedonism, which *nobody* is arguing for. When people say they're hedonists, they mean something such as prudential hedonism, which isn't about short-term gratification whatsoever.
There are several things wrong with this line of thinking. In the first example of whether or not to keep a promise, Rowland construes Hedonism to be a short-term gratification seeking belief. In reality, Hedonism is a consequentialist belief and therefore very much concerned with the overall pleasure/pain of a decision in the long-run. It may suck to keep a promise, but it may be an important relationship with the possibility of more well-being if kept than if not. Additionally, Nozick's argument about The Experience Machine provides no evidence that we should prefer the real experience over the illusion. This being the case, I'd challenge the second premise.
I fully agree. Why should it be better to have the actual experience compared to having only the illusion of it? That premise remained unsubstantiated in this video.
In fact, who is telling us, that we are not in an experience machine? If the illusion is perfect, you can't even distinguish actual experience and illusion of experience, making this argument invalid in my point of view.
Rowland is supposed to be an 'expert'!
I agree , The ultimate end goal of nearly are long term and short term decisions to to experience some sort of pleasure from certain actions , what certain goals and actions you happen to find pleasurable can change so much between individuals however the end goal of all this to to experience your own sense of pleasure
I agree, from the perspective of the person using the machine and the person actually living the experiences that are simulated in the machine are indistinguishable, it is only from the perspective of the person viewing both at the same times does the observer draw the conclusion that it is better to live then be in the machine, and that conclusion is probably not from a philosophical perspective but a psychological one either a). Being untrusting of the machine’s capabilities.
Or
B) a societal obligation that you have to suffer (ie) work for your pleasure, the idea of getting it for free seems off because we are raised to believe that we must.
If you remove both of these factors observers will choose the machine every time
Nice arguments
There is also reverse experience machine thought experiment. You are living your pleasurable life and you are happy, you have achieved some stuff became a writer, won medals etc. and one day someone tells you that you are in the experience machine. Would you continue living your life or get out?
Is it actually a life though? It's more of a dream state, you can't live in dream land. Super interestinf
Reminiscent of "The Allegory of the Cave"
Please tell me: Why is it better for us to do these things than to merely have the illusion of doing these things?
That is exactly what I'm wondering, on what basis is that better? The choice of words on his answer diminishes the true magnitude of the problem.
If you are a brain in a vat living in a fake world right now, would it change everything you have experienced till now?
What if our bodies are the vats and we live in a fake world created by our perceptions, colors and all properties of matter that we can experience only exist because our bodies elaborate those experience for us, there is no blue light, there is a light with a certain wavelength that when hits our eyes it signals our brain to match a blue sensation.
The right question would be is there sensation and experience beyond us? Something that would be absolutely true that would differ the doing from feeling that you are doing a thing?
I was thinking the same thing. I don't get what happened in the end of this video. Did I miss something or did he really just claim that without explaining it in anyway? His arguing seemed to go like "but that's not true, therefore that's not true", but that wouldn't make any sense, so what did I miss?
Huonous He just made a claim without explaining, and choose a diminishing word "illusion" to make the "real" choice better than what is.
Just see that in the beginning of the video he says that the fake and real things would have nothing different, they are indistinguishable from trom each other, except that in this thought experiment, you really know that it is fake, but you just know, can't tell any diference.
logicalempiricist Sure, I completely agree with you!
Very interesting argument but I wonder if this changes if we consider the hedonistic notion to be universal, and not exclusive. In other words, if not only you, but all other people were within their own machines and experiencing their own pleasures, then the significance of actually doing these things may not be so important as your actions would not necessarily be required for their happiness. Furthermore, if we also consider that the hedonistic movement implies the elimination of negative emotions and feelings (that often cause us suffering) such as jealousy, envy or anger, then an adulterous act as you describe may not induce the suffering we now associate with such an act. This of course opens doors to all sorts of other issues of morals and ethics, but true universal hedonistic society would need no longer rely on the necessity of actually doing any act for the rewards we now attribute to them.
I sure am glad that the closing argument didn't beg the question. That would have been incredibly frustrating for everyone and deeply embarrassing to this lecturer and his university.
lol
What would that question be?
@@danielbutcher8108 He's joking because it is begging the question. He concludes that hedonism is false based on the premise that "it is better for us to do these things rather than just have the illusion of doing these things", which is completely circular as he hasn't said why
gotta be another case of who you know not what you know....... oxford pffff
@@IamSuperEffective
He thinks most people would choose the real over the illusion just because the intrinsic value of truth over illusion, thus defeating hedonism. But I see it this way. People who chose real over illusion only did so because of the pleasure it brings them to know that it's real, and/or because the displeasure they would feel knowing it's an illusion. Not because of any intrinsic value in truth. In the end, it's still about pleasure and displeasure. There is no flaw in Hedonism, only the thought experiment.
we cannot be outside of the machine, because as a brain, we are the machine
Like others have said, you can't just assert that the real experience is better than the illusory one. Take Cypher from The Matrix, for example. In his real life he is unable to find pleasure so he chooses to plug himself back into the literal experience machine that is The Matrix. In the same way, we can't all be athletes or award winning actors (some people can't even bear children), so the comparison is more than likely between having these wonderful experiences or not at all.
What about experiences that hurt other people? Inside the machine, can we kill? Can we rape? If one were inclined to enjoy these things, would it be better to do them inside or outside of the machine?
OnceVitriolic Why would you get pleasure of such a thing? I get it is virtual but still, that person (even if it is virtual in a machine or whatever) is not enjoying it. I just can never understand why someone gets off to that. I am trying hard to not insult you.
Tylar Jones
Have you ever played a video game with any sort of violence in it? Are you suggesting that some 12 year old playing CoD is equivalent to a sadistic murderer?
You're too focused on some trivial point and not focused on the actual point the person was making.
Kim Yeah, that scene in Matrix pretty much debunks the second point. Hedonism doesn’t care about truth, about the real world: it only cares about pleasure.
Maybe we are already in an experience machine :)
Indeed. Looking forward to a set of videos on skepticism! It's definitely something that we plan on making.
Wireless Philosophy how can you test whether you're hooked up to an experience machine? it doesnt seem skepticism is any use there. also, what justification is there for the second premise in your argument at the video's closing? all you said in the video was that "it seems to us that it's better to ACTUALLY have/be..." but that is of course spoken from the perspective of people (presumably) outside of the experience machine. from the perspective of one INSIDE, the "fake" reality will seem to be "real" reality and he will not FEEL less satisfaction with his life than someone who knows better.
Exactly. We could be in a machine right now without knowing. Therefore, for me, the conclusions of the video are wrong.
shiftplusone80 of course it's a possibility. one might even argue it's inevitable that we'll be able to make one if humanity survives long enough.
Maybe this video is actual gaslighting
I believe the experience is all that matters. If I have to live it organically or not this does not matter. If a synthetic experience takes the same or less time and is 100% accurate.this is superior. This synthetic experience could also be optimized where reality cannot as well as live beyond limitations the original cannot.
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
I think you are saying something a bit close to what I am thinking. In the simulation, I could be an astronaut, but how about the return to the surface, or I could be a super famous movie star, but what about sitting in a cute little restaurant and trying have a quiet pleasant dinner?
@Jack Clare looks like you don't understand the definition of ethics. Ethical values can be prohibitions against certain behaviors, meaning even inaction can be ethical. Also, the decision to enter the machine is an action.
The guy's voice goes from soft to very loud way too much, made it difficult to listen.
So your big two arguments are that you keep the promise (forgetting longer term pleasure and pain where it might be net more enjoyable to be and have a good friend) and that you personally feel that the experience machine would be wrong (without any reason why)? Brilliant.
"But this seems wrong to us." Speak for yourself, mate. Hell, I think there may be a fairly convincing argument that having a family within the simulation is better than having a real family!
I think the experience machine is the obvious choice. Think of the opposite situation: you're on your way home one day after yet another successful and fulfilling day at the office, ready to meet your beloved, beautiful wife and brilliant kids, when some guy comes up to you and tells you that this is all a simulated reality, and that he can take you to the real world. The catch is that the real world is painful and shitty, you're actually a vagrant without a family living on dirty streets, and you came into a lab one day for a scientific experiment just to make a few bucks so you could eat that week. You have the option of returning to that life, or staying in this "false" one. What do you choose?
If you say you'd be the vagrant, or really anything less that what you are in this fake life,then I simply can not understand you. I can't fathom a good reason to leave the better life. Even if the two lives were identical, why leave this great life you know for an equally great life you're not quite as familiar with? I think 99% of people would tell the man to bugger off, and the last 1% most likely isn't thinking rationally.
What do you mean by "real pleasure"? If you experience pleasure then you experience pleasure. Something needs to negate that pleasure in order for it to lose legitimacy.
"The beautiful wife and kids are enticing. But that's assuming that your preferences are correct today." How could something subjective be incorrect? My preferences change but that doesn't make my old preferences less "correct" Pain without eventual comfort for someone is at best useless.
Contrary to what you have stated you do seek a life of comfort. You want to work hard so that you can feel pleasure and/or give someone else pleasure.
"I choose vagrancy. All day everyday" No, you choose to leave vagrancy. Choosing vagrancy would be doing whatever you want without regard for the consequences. Working out of vagrancy means that you don't want to be a vagrant. Choosing to put oneself through discomfort without trying to get something out of it would be self-harm.
I agree that having everything handed to you isn't very effective, however having nothing handed to you also has ill effects. Being disenfranchised or poor is associated with increases in crime. Having strong safety nets and welfare by contrast is associated with reduction in crime. Ideally people should be encouraged to be self sufficient but still have access to help should they need it.
That is exactly what came to mind for me.
@@thrilos7 Would you also choose to be a paraplegic who cannot communicate to the outside world, with an injury that will never be repaired, just because that is real?
I think he did wrong for generalizing and so did you. For me I would argue the same as him, I would rather be in a real world where it is difficult rather than the greatest illusion, experiencing pleasure with no one actually real being there but an illusion is definitely worst for me. But I do believe this will always be subjective
"I can't fathom a good reason to leave the better life"
Because it is not a real life.
If you can't feel physical pain in the machine, then I choose machine.
I know that Nozick says "We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.", but why do we want more than just the experiences doing them? What matters to us in addition to the experiences? What can't we get from the experience of doing but by actually doing them?
My friend who is a very successful businessman said that he wonders what good is all the success if he does not have the time to enjoy it, to have happiness in his life. I told him that "If all you want out of life is happiness, all you need is to start snorting dopamine and serotonin to your brain". Pleasure and Pain are merely translation of the signals that the brain processes; and with today's technology it is possible to have such experience without actual gain or damage to our biological body. I agree with most commenters here that there is no logical basis to say that 2) reality is better than simulation. But in the case of drug addiction, naturally generated pleasure is much less damaging than artifically generated pleasure.
I don't think the machine has drawbacks like with drugs. Maybe a real life machine would, but the one in the thought experiment doesn't.
I think you are wrong about modern technology being able to create those experiences without consequences. For example it's possible to run electricity through part of the brain, and create pleasure. However doing so dulls the ability to feel pleasure without it.
Adding pleasure chemicals to the brain would also be ineffective. MDMA causes you to release a great deal of seratonin. While the serotonin is released it damages the brain.
Can you prove point 2, though? Why is it better to DO or BE than to EXPERIENCE, if we ourselves can't tell the difference? In fact, as a counter to this argument, I would say that if we had access to such a machine, then it would be significantly EASIER to experience rather than do/be, as we could just program the machine then get inside. Because of this, if we were to exert the same amount of effort into experience as doing/being, we could amass much more pleasure from the experience machine than from the real world, which hedonism would very much be in favour of.
“I want to be someone important... like... an actor”
Whatever you want, Mr Reagan
Here's my response, how do I know I don't already live in the experience machine, and simply experience a simulation of a normal life after earth has been long dead? What exactly validates this reality to be the real one in the first place? The experience machine falls apart in the face my existential belief, that reality is ultimately unknowable, and that we can only know sensation.
Why is it better to be actually doing pleasurable things in what we would call reality? By actually doing them you're experiencing them through your senses. By fooling the senses you're still experiencing the same phenomenon. Isn't the experience all we're after? The second premise that was used to disprove hedonism needs validation. Does anyone feel the same way? Or perhaps disagree? If so why?
My only objection to this argument is the assumption that the person in question made a deliberate choice to enter a false reality. They deluded themselves into believing that things were better for themselves than they really were.
I wholeheartedly agree that those people have made an error of judgement in accepting an illusionary reality, particular in the interest of pleasure or personal gain. But what of those people who had no choice in deciding their fate whether to be within or without the machine?
Support hedonism and try to live it. (to a good degree) 🙂
Being is experience. To experience is to be, is it not? What are we without experience; if being is just a coagulation of our experiences.
There is a huge glaring problem with this thought experiment.
The fact that the events in the machine are indistinguishable and the individual as would be none the wiser to being in the machine means that to the actor there is absolutely no differentiation between the two scenarios.
To elaborate ,if you happened to chose to try the machine or to reject the proposal , you would be none the wiser to having made that decision regardless of the actual ‘reality’ of making your decision. Apart from in the ‘non-reality’ experience machine condition there would be no pains and suffering.
The experiment as it is posed is functionally exactly the same if we introduce another more common antidotal thought experiment
Say you encountered a pill that could remove all pains and ills in your life and give you the power to furfill your wildest dreams.Would you take it ?
Most people would more then likely be enticed by this proposal more so as the idea of ‘reality’ isn’t challenged , even though they are functionally at the end result the same.
Considering human beings naturally try and pursue hedonistic lifestyles , self help and self preservation ,this thought experiment misses the point via the actors perception of reality ( after making either decision) remains ‘true’ to that actor , not dissimilar in fact to plato’s the cave ‘
With the purest, personal understanding of the desired experience and it's long term and short term consequences, an important variable appears.
The final argument is invalid because the second premise is not "true"
Assertions all around. Any aces in this deck?
I think we need to know if we are actually experiencing a real life or are we just experiencing an illusion of life. If life is an illusion, then how are we to say that real life experiences are better?
'Hedonism' in everyday conversation is an egoistic pursuit of personal happiness or at least specific forms of happiness (like drug induced euphoria or sexual pleasure). Hedonism as a theory of welfare states that the experience of happiness (which I define as all emotional states that are felt as intrinsically positive. What distinguishes different 'forms' of happiness are the kinds of objects that they have, for example - the object of pride is a positive self-image and the objects of love are the intuitively, if not consciously, perceived minds of other entities, but the felt emotional positive-ness of both states is identical/interchangeable) is the only thing that is intrinsically beneficial and hedonism as a theory of value in general states that all happiness (everyone's happiness as well as all 'forms' of happiness) and only happiness is intrinsically good (harm/benefit is a value judgement but considering or believing something to be intrinsically good means you think that everyone has a reason to value it). If the friend who breaks his promise is a consistent 'hedonist' in terms of what he considers to be intrinsically good then he'll have no inherent problem with breaking his promise per se but he'd factor into consideration whatever happiness or distress he believes his friend would or would not ultimately feel as a result of his keeping or breaking his promise when making that decision, he might still keep his promise even if he believed that he personally would be better off having broken it. You have to refer to the value of something other than happiness to justify valuing one person's happiness more or less than any other person's happiness because the nature of one person's happiness is identical to any other person's. If you consider water to be inherently good then you can't make an arbitrary distinction between the water in the Indian Ocean and the water in the Atlantic (I don't think the emotional states of separate minds can be meaningfully aggregated but that's off topic).
I don't think happiness can be logically demonstrated to be beneficial or good (although I do think it being inherently good is consistent with direct experience) but hedonism is the only logically consistent theory of welfare. You can't benefit from or be made better off by something that doesn't affect you. It's a direct contradiction to acknowledge that something has 0 effect on your mind (that you don't experience it) but it's influenced you in such a way that you're better or worse off because of it (assuming that 'you' are a mind. I don't think physical entities can benefit from anything- like health, which is just the capacity for biological organisms to function in a way that leads to prolonged survival- for one, our toes aren't directly affected by what happens to our ears and a physical thing can't be affected by the characteristics that define it or it's own existence. I won't get into that or why I'd rule out certain sensory perception or certain beliefs as being intrinsically beneficial but either way it would still be an actual mental state that minds benefit from, the nature of a belief or sensory perception has nothing to do with how accurately it describes reality or an external world).
To begin my rebuttal, I'd like to make clear that the very view of Hedonism that this viedo seeks to put out there as a simplistic, near-junkie like belief system of immidiate pleasures and immidiate gratification is utterly false.
Hedonism is the belief that we should embrace pleasure, and avoid pain at all costs. How cone experiences that pleasure, is individualistically different. Hedonism is not a set pattern of behaviours and/or acts that have to be fufilled for one to be a Hedonist. Hedonism merely means that you seek out what is the most pleasurable for you as an individual. I find it enjoyable to smoke a cigar while drinking an expensive whisky because it gives me pleasure and a sense of power, power over what I feel and both in concophany make me feel better. To me, this is Hedonism. It is a very loose -ism when compeard to others like masochism or sadism.
But to the machine mentioned in the video, alas, for some it may be far better to just experience something as a simulation. But, for great many of us, the knowledge alone that that experience would be sythetic is by itself an idea that robs any and all pleasure from it. E.g. I find the idea of father to be exciting, but, the idea of a manufactured one is not nearly as exciting. Because I'd know what I am experiencing is not real; I am not leaving my biological mark on the world as I wanted to, which robs the experience of pleasure, causing pain. Even if the machine made me unaware of its influence on me, it would overule the belief that "Hedonism is false" as I would, in essence, be forced to be in a state that I would not enjoy if I was aware of it. Anyone, put into this sort of a state, would be powerless to do anything about it. Thus the argument "Hedonism is flase" is overuled, because that machine would destroy every individuals ability to think outside of it should the individual be put into it without them being aware that they are in it.
It doesn’t take an enormous amount of wisdom in seeing the value in keeping your promise. Only if you assume hedomistic pleasure must necessarily be instant gratification do you fail to see the value in keeping your end of an agreement.
As to the machine, if the experiences are indistinguishable, how can you distinguish the preferable one? Basicallly, you are asking people which is better, two bits or a quarter to people that mistakenly think two bits isn’t exactly the same thing.
Your imagine is the experiment machine. Use it wisely
If in the machine, would you not be limited to only the pleasure of yourself, rather than be indemned to others' pleasures?
This also makes me think of what my former economics professor said: "Someone's income is another person's opportunity and cost."
Would actual being, rather than experiencing, not create an inequality because these are real world consequences?
pivoting from "experience" to "illusion" to justify a preconceived negation of a theory. what a waste of 4 minutes.
Based on the first minute, this "head-in-ism" philosophy sure sounds promising.
How is there any difference between mere experience and reality?
The argument seems a little incomplete perhaps. If our hedonistic pleasure of choice was drinking alcohol, smoking or eating junk food, could it also be maintained that it's better to indulge these cravings in reality rather than in simulation? And when we employ the 'simulation' argument, aren't we then sidetracked into questions relating to the nature of experience rather than those of the hedonistic preference? Or perhaps we cannot evaluate hedonism without first exploring the nature of experience?
Let's say we find out tomorrow that our entire universe and all of it's history and all of us are just computer programs of some alien civilization, does that negate all the things that people have done and experienced? Would you love your family any less? How would it devalue your experiences? Does it really matter because that the experiences weren't physical?
um, no. this doesn't make hedonism false. because having a real experience is no better for the individual than the virtual experience would be. having a real family would be better for the rest of real life society, but it would make absolutely no difference to the individual, and hedonism is entirely about individual pleasure, not the pleasure of society.
so hedonism is obviously not false, whatever that is even supposed to mean, its simply selfish. if a hedonist is consistent in their reasoning they shouldn't even care if the human race went extinct because of their actions, because it wouldn't effect them in any way or cause them pain.
It seems like we can't take any action that isn't perfectly in line with hedonism then. Nothing but selfishness here.
That's egoism, not hedonism. Hedonists can advocate for the happiness of all sentient beings, not just themselves.
if it's merely an experience, the illusion/experience is in your head and not in the real world reality therefore it would only impact you and not anyone else in your life. Therefore, there's more to life than experiencing pleasure.
"And fulfill [every] commitment. Indeed, the commitment is ever [that about which one will be] questioned." (17:34)
God forbade us to break any agreements /promises which we have made!
Ok but the question that arises in my head: Which one is a stronger experience, an illusion on the real thing? Might seem like a no brained but everyone’s psychology is different.
Wow that's great
You stated that it’s better for us to really do these things rather than experience them but you didn’t explain why.
I think this question becomes more and more import in the coming years with 1/ the probable legalisation of some drugs and 2/ as gaming and the internet evolves.
Real life pleasure seems better to me but, particularly as synthetic 'highs' are lower cost I can't for the life of me justify that opinion.
The experience machine is flawed, or perhaps I do not understand the complete parameters of the machine. In the machine if I am an athlete then do I gain the same actual physical attributes while in machine, or am I seated and in reality my muscles are atrophying? If its the later then being in the machine would not make me happy as my mind may be content at the expense of my real life health. I would rather live real life where I could pursue happiness which includes physical health.
+ISSGOD Yeah, but while you're in the machine, that IS your life. You would still be able to pursue happiness in physical health, among many other things, while in the machine.
I don't agree with the statement that it is better for us to do these things then having the illusion of doing these things.
Interesting analysis, but you need to turn your mic gain down.
TheGreatSimonski! Thanks for the feedback!
+Wireless Philosophy I get it.
Life without pain is nothin lol.
Life without pain is BETTER
Hedonism ftw 🙌🏻
Claiming something is "better" with no explanation does not prove that hedonism is false. There's problems with both premises.
Therefore hedonism is true.
Lol no I haven't explained myself either, but that's exactly how you just tried to disprove hedonism.
Interestingly enough it started with "seem-ing" on the side of hedonism, and ended with "seem-ing" on the side of Nozick. One intuition against another. Actually, some research in experimental philosophy shows that some other "ordinary" people - besides armchair philosophers throwing their intuitions as us ("it seems to me it is better to have X than experience X") - make this conclusion rather weak. Interesting video regardless.
1. According to spherical Earth, the Earth is a rock orbiting in space around the Sun and the Milky Way
2.The Earth is flat
Therefore
The Earth is flat
You could very easily fix the argument by replacing the word "is" with the words "appears to be".
Hedonism seems like the correct value system because it is built into our bodies. Other value systems are made up. It seems like the main conflicting value system is placing value on maximizing the life expectancy rather than maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. This is nice because birth and death are easier to measure, but it conflicts with hedonism.
I do not agree with the second premise of the final argument of this video.
Less reliance on subjective buzzwords. More articulation on why the argument of experience vs reality actually matters.
But when you leave the machine that is a very unpleasant experience, which skews the experiement. To truly make it fair it would have to be the experience before leaving the machine vs actually doing it, and yes I would argue that those two things are indistinguishable.
If you had the illusion of all these things then it would have to be so immersive that you would not know the difference. If you did know the difference then it would not be an experience but mere daydreaming.
You would have that flash of a fully formed character leap into your brain as if they were real. The story would almost tell itself as you wrote....you would be in a flow state and time would dilate.
You would have the same experience as a real famous author. There would be no difference so why would it matter if objectively you were trapped in the illusion?
why am i the only one who would not mind the experience machine?
There is so much wrong with this video, why does hedonism as for the machine necessarily imply illusion to be the same as living experience? Who says one is better than the other and why?
You didn't seem to give a good reason why actually doing something is better than merely experiencing it. If you would, please do it, otherwise that which if stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Doesn't this this thought experiment rely solely on question begging? The premises of this hypothetical scenario assumes the truth of the conclusion. I don't think we have any idea if reality confers a preferential experience over a simulated one.
I kind of hate the fact that one just comes to the conclusion that hedonism is false. It's a perspektive on life itself, isn't it?
You could argue that living in a machine wouldn't make any difference for the rest of the world and that it's therefor not the best thing for society but for the individual, it wouldn't make a difference.
So I guess it's a question of weather hedonism is false in a manner of contributing to society or false in a manner of stimulating individuals. But if it's about the individual, we already live in an experience machine.
It still sounds like an opinion to actually have the real experience, instead of the illusion. What if you live in a place that has terrible living conditions and to have a child there would be unfair to the child? I would rather have the experience of having a child rather than actually having a child, if it meant that that child's life would be miserable.
I am not convinced that hedonism is wrong, based on this video.
but the brain is in a shell and cant never ever experience reality therefor the machine is the greatest experience you can have.
so hedonism is true
People who live life like a bowl full of candy, end up with a life full cavities.
My question for this is, is it moral for a sadist to kill a suicidal person?
How can you say that keeping a promise is not pleasurable?, seems a bias example.
You suggested hedonism is false by asserting it is better to actually do stuff but did not explain why. You simply assumed it was better. If you think about it there are instances where just having an indistinguishable experience is better, not least because you can be injured in all sorts of ways by doing things in reality.
It's been a long time since I've seen such extremely poor attempts at making a logical argument.
Not only did you not support premise 2, you didn't even adequately support premise 1. The Hedonist can prefer the real world equivalent on the basis of the potential outcome of the machine breaking down or being turned off.
Also, your thought expirement isn't even an accurate portrayal of the challenge. The real challenge is similar to the halodecks in Star Trek, where you can have unlimited pleasure of any sort you want and without any consequences you wish to avoid (no weight gain or tooth decay from eating ice cream, and no STIs or unwanted pregancy from sex, etc.)
*This* is the type of Hedonistic scenario and philosophical challenge that is supposed to be presented for you to try to logically defeat, but you didn't... Because you can't.
But why is it better for us to actually do these things?
It would be better to actually be an actor because you are giving other people pleasure by creating entertainment.
It would be better to actually have a family because you are giving other people pleasure by giving them love.
It would be better to be a great scientist because you are giving other people pleasure by advancing technologies and creating solutions.
And so on.
Therefore, hedonism is still valid.
I have a theory that the bay accent is hedonistic
Yes Inside The Machine That Loves Me Lucifer Forever Hedonistically Lucifirianly Pleasurably Forevermore PLEASE AND THANKYOU
Yeah but all we have is experience. There really is no difference in "having X/doing X" and "having the experience of having or doing X". Everything that we want, we want because we want the experience of that thing. Because all that we can have is, most truly, merely the experience of things, that argument against hedonism is invalid.
good argument. If hedonism is about seeking pleasure, and you feel you get more pleasure from doing the events in the experience machine in real life, then wouldn't hedonism still be "correct" or "true". I don't think hedonism is a flawed ideal when faced with the experience machine because although we know we would get more pleasure from being outside of the machine, those in the machine could not tell the difference. If they knew somehow , they would opt for more pleasure. Be that from leaving the machine and experiencing reality or by staying in the mech and having fun, it doesn't matter. they still are just seeking pleasure.I feel your argument conflicts with the premise of the mech, with all due respect.
I have no idea why the second premise is true. if anything its neutral. or untrue
If having experiences was as simple as detailed in such an “Experience Machine,” why would you go through the PAIN and work of getting those positive experiences in factuality rather than getting the PLEASURE of the same experiences without the PAIN accompanied with achieving those things in real life. This is where your argument fails: why is it better to have something in reality than in artificial experience if said things are equal in apparent value and achieving them artificially would be AVOIDING PAIN to achieve PLEASURE?
we already have that machine
its called video games and tv
That's why we play games. The illusion is just as good as the real deal.
Seems to me that Oxford standards are not so high after all...
If truly indistinguishable , then there would be no advantage to having a child, but having a child for real creates another life that is distinguishable from the virtual matrix, no matter how real it seems, and in as much, that means the pleasure, joy from truly having a child, creating another life, nullifies your argument and truly keeps hedonism as the moral,just and best decision for all. You in as much state it as a fact it is better, why better, well that reward ,feeling, satisfaction of having a child is what would make a true hedonist chose it over a virtual world any day! Seriously, you have a college degree and can't see a flawed argument as saying they are both the same,but not the same. Come on man, think about what you are saying,!
3rd Impact
Anytime now
yea no one else thinks nr. 2 is the way it is presented here, so this demonstration is false
It would be a brilliant thing. I would plug in for life if that's an option, also if everything will look and feel real xD I mean if you can't tell the difference, why not? XD
Would you not get jaded from having everything you ever wanted? It would make the good stuff all but worthless without the bad stuff.
You begged the question
You didnt come to a conclusive point
Is this machine real
Actually I wondered if you're a religious..
So the only reason hedonism is wrong is because it feels wrong? That seems like a weak argument
but....you just proved that is was better and then you whaat
When you pronounce Hedonism wrong and never find out...
Where
mere EXPERIENCE
I'm actually offended. Im literally here just trying to get some insight, but the argument presented in this vid is TRASH. The conclusion, including the follow up, is clearly a dogmatic misrepresentation/misunderstanding of hedonism: presupposing ,not only, an individuals reaction to the thought experiment that's presented, but also the validity of the hedonist argument itself. I quite literally physically cringed at the final assertion. If the hedonism he describes in this video is true then the choice between "real" or "fake" experiences is completely benign. Just because a humans instinct may be to choose what is "real" does not mean that the premises of hedonism are false. It only means that the human believes that having "real" experiences are better or more pleasurable. The reasons someone may make this choice are completely subject to their personal biases, experiences, and understandings or morality and the world. Someone else could very well make the other decision to have "fake" experiences. If the hedonism he's referring to only suggests that you should do what provides you the most pleasure than of course every individual will have a different response dependent upon their experiences. Personally, the only downside that comes with "The Machine" would be it possibly causing other people to suffer through your absence. If we go off of the hedonism that's described in this video then... literally nothing changes in a moral sense and you're free to do as you please.
Ditto..furthermore, if this machine is able grant desires otherwise unobtainable then personally, I see no personal preference for the "truth". Many people are satisfied through living a lie. With free will to choose, the machine becomes the truth. Im no philosopher but it seems to me like a piss poor argument filled with holes. What say I direct my fantasy experience to include features where I have made the machine is the truth. If I am in fact inside the machine, this becomes the new truth. You can't be 2 places at once...thus it is true you are in the machine. This is why I favor the terms Alternative Reality or Alternative consciousness instead of VR or AI. Manufactured electronic intelligence. ...
Also while we are here..
Why do old people like wine?🍷 Cuz they're stupid and it tastes bad --gallagher
Sophistry at its best... First, you're making a serious mistake considering that hedonism aims at easy pleasure: that is a caricature. For hedonism, pleasure is the best way we know to consider wether something is good for us or not, but pain is not necessarily to reject. Epicurus wrote that some easy pleasures are to avoid because they'll finally give you more pain (like eating too much, for instance), and some pains are worth living because they will give you joy at the end of the day... Epicurism is a frugal lifestyle not a philosphical excuse to take hard drugs on the beach in Ibiza. Pain and pleasure are moral clues and moral tools to guide you on the road of your life. Hedonism is a philosophy that refuses to demonize pleasure. We should accept pleasure as a radar and use it this way.
I think the statement, “Therefore, Hedonism is false” is a very overly objective and bold statement, to stay the least. To end on the video on this statement is overly conclusive...Hedonism has too long a history to be simply “false.” It’s just another philosophical approach.
This made no sense. Especially when you brought up the athlete thing in my opinion now sports should not be pursued for an experience it is excercise and a social construct to relate to other social groups do you need to be a world class athlete to feel and be healthy and athletic? Do we need to reproduce to keep society going yes. Can you adopt too? Yes. More emphasis is on the normal having your own family tho
It’s funny what our society boils down to - when you hear keywords such as ‘professor’ and ‘university of Oxford’, you go into an experience (hehe) such as the one offered in this video with a sense of reverence which stems from the prestige and worth of a reputable and longstanding academic institution.
It is absolutely farcical, especially given your heavy branding, that you may even attempt to suggest that a school of thought is false - let alone state is as fact.
Stewie Griffith
🔻
One counterargument against the experience machine is that people prefer the real-world experience due to the status quo bias. Say you were to reverse the question - you're told that your current life is a simulation, and are given the option to return to the (worse) real world. Would you still pick the real world?
mere mere mere mere mere mere mere mere mere mere
"Hedonism is false because I say its false." Is this video a joke?
First of all, that friend example is not an example of hedonism. If you keep your promise to your friend, you may get momentary displeasure/pain, but your friendship will bring more pleasure in the long run, thus making it a bad example. Hell, even if it wasn't for a friend but a random act of kindness, you would still get a sense of pleasure of being helpful to someone.
After that you just make a few meaningless examples that you keep repeating about things one would want to achieve. Things that you cannot achieve in real life! Which is the whole point of the experience machine... If you could do it in real life you wouldn't need a machine to simulate the experience now would you?!
Sure if its something small like having children, you could easily achieve that yourself, or even if its something harder like becoming a famous actor you would at the very least be able to attempt this goal. But what about someone who is paralyzed from the neck down, are you saying, that person experiencing being an athlete is less meaningful than someone healthy and talented actually becoming one?
If you think all that one would want to experience in an ideal simulated scenario are mundane things like becoming an actor or an athlete, rather than impossible feats like flying, or visiting other planets, then you have absolutely no imagination and would make your ignorant stance more understandable.
Then you just finish the video with saying "hedonism is false", "cause doing it for real is better" (I'm paraphrasing of course), without reasoning, without an argument, you just make a baseless claim.
An emotional argument is worthless, but here we don't even get an argument at all. This video is embarrassing.