Is Pleasure The Secret to a Good Life? | Thought Experiment: The Experience Machine

Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Think, Cypher eating that juicy steak in The Matrix…...
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
In this episode we’re gonna talk about a philosophical thought experiment concerning simulated experiences. But before we do that… How you doing? Really. Tell us. We wanna know. Really. Dig deep. We don’t care about your DAY… We wanna know if you’re having a good LIFE? What even ... MAKES ... a GOOD life? It’s a tough question, so… here’s some guidance: is a good life… having lots of pleasurable experiences? Is that the best situation? Hedonism is a philosophy that argues a good life is one filled with pleasure and this ties directly to the thought experiment on today’s agenda: Robert Nozick’s Experience Machine. Nozick asks, If you had the option to hook yourself up to a machine that gave you the experience of whatever pleasure you wanted, would you do it? Would you LIVE inside this machine? The true hedonist would say yes… but is a life filled with simulated pleasure really what makes a good life? Let us know what you think in the comments below!
This episode was co-written by Olly from Philosophy Tube
/ thephilosophytube
-BOOK CLUB-
/ idea_channel_book_club...
-FURTHER READING ON HEDONISM-
plato.stanford....
-CHECK OUT OUR MERCH!-
bit.ly/1U8fS1B
T-Shirts Designed by:
artsparrow.com/
-TWEET OF THE WEEK-
/ 789545041094205441
-ASSET LINKS-
2:23 First look at THE VOID
• First look at THE VOID
2:30 San Junipero (Black Mirror) - Heaven Is A Place On Earth HD
• San Junipero (Black Mi...
2:58 GoPro HERO5 + Karma: The Launch in 4K
• GoPro HERO5 + Karma: T...
3:05 GoPro: Koa Smith's 27 Second Skeleton Barrel - GoPro of the World August Winner
• GoPro: Koa Smith's 27 ...
4:32 GoPro HERO5 + Karma: The Launch in 4K
• GoPro HERO5 + Karma: T...
07:28 THE SCARIEST FUN! | Richies Plank Experience VR (HTC Vive Virtual Reality)
• THE SCARIEST FUN! | Ri...
7:31 CLIMB EVEREST IN VIRTUAL REALITY - Everest VR (HTC Vive Virtual Reality)
• CLIMB EVEREST IN VIRTU...
7:33 Virtual Reality - SteamVR featuring the HTC Vive
• Virtual Reality - Stea...
07:40 Project CARS - Formula A - Imola - Oculus Rift Runtime 1.3 Steam Version
• Project CARS - Formula...
07:52 VR the Champions - Surgeon Simulator- Meet the Medic
• VR the Champions - Sur...
-MUSIC-
/ minimalist
---------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­------------------------­-­-­-­
Written and hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
(who also has a podcast! Reasonably Sound: bit.ly/1sCn0BF)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)

[@omamba5105]

Who's to say an experience machine is any less true than reality? Our brains are basically just experience machines, interpreting a variety of inputs to generate a reality we can understand.

[@jonathaneby1440]

Jeremy Brown I agree to an extent. I had the same thought when the machine was first mentioned, but thinking about it, I would be an island in the machine, with no way to learn or impact others lives. I also think a big part of the pleasure of life is learning and growing from your failures. And if the machine needs to replicate failure and pain in order to get all the pleasure out of life, why get into the machine in the first place?

[@matthewlizst7939]

The key is that you know the experience machine is at work: you know the difference between the real world and the reconstruction. This isn't Plato's cave allegory where the people in the cave really believe the shadows of props are the world as it is; you know for a fact the experiences in the machine aren't real and can choose whether to live the rest of your life in it or not.

[@jonathaneby1440]

Matthew Lizst To me though, aside from the existential, isolationist, Matrixy problems I'd have with the machine, if it was a true hedonistic device, it would only give me pleasure. (I think. correct me if I'm wrong) If so, I wouldn't want to live in it cuz I wouldn't be able to learn from my pains and failures. My growth from my pains and failures give me some if my best pleasures, so if it wanted to give me my best pleasures it would have to give me pain too. And at that point it's no different from real life, so why go in in the first place? (Your statment may have been a general one, not to me. But I still wanted to throw in my ¢2)

[@matthewlizst7939]

Jonathan Eby It was general (didn't see your comment when I replied), but I'm happy to respond to you. There are different types of hedonism, with Jeremy Bentham's purer form very much falling prey to the pitfalls in this thought experiment. I think you're probably right: if you're more like John Stuart Mill (or most modern utilitarians), you'd find the experience machine lacking in fulfillment or "higher pleasures" which people may be more interested in. I'm not a utilitarian, so my objection is that simulated pleasures are morally irrelevant, but that's a different topic.

[@omamba5105]

+Jonathan Eby Here's something I've been thinking about for some time now. What if, the world we live in today, is just a very sophisticated virtual reality experience? Wouldn't that be something, to die and then wake up just to remember that the life you just lived really only took place over the course of a couple hours as part of a school project. Something designed to give kids life experiences so they will be ready to adult.

[@MrKubahades]

Digital art and Weed are my biggest pleasures, and Im quite happy with my existence and life. My rules are basically don't be a dick, seems to work on most things in life

[@silverpro1v2]

Zachar Art You get me!!!!

[@mer7cer7]

"Don't be a dick." Words to live by.

[@zacherylouis8660]

That's Wil Wheaton's Law of the Internet there!

[@cojin01]

sometimes difficult tho xD

[@OrbitalRecordshq]

hello my clone

[@metatem1756]

Personally, I would be fine plugging into a simulated experience outside of reality for my whole life. The main reason I see for people not wanting to plug into the machine personally is the want to accomplish something "real" in your life. But I personally don't feel that need and thusly use the internet and sleeping as something like the pleasure machine and real life is just a chore I have to do to access that pleasure.

[@xDeadmausx]

My feelings exactly, well said.

[@BlueBD]

sam carder yes. if i could i would gladly live in the machine. really i been jaded by real life. it has broken me and especially now i dont see any hope in it...

[@metatem1756]

Blue★ If you don't like the world as it is try to change it. You can do it if you try hard enough. Treat real life like a simulation and try to get your ideal outcome whatever it may be. Mine is just to live life as it comes as i've not really got anything much bad or good going for me so.

[@retardosaurusrex360]

Yeah but I think a main reason that the experience machine might not be that good is that humans are very social beings and the knowledge that everyone you thought loved you is fake or that their love is an act completely destroys any pleasure you might get from their love. There is a certain pleasure in interacting with other people and finding people you like or love but this pleasure is gone when you know none of these people are real or genuine. It all depends on what type of pleasure you seek and how you experience it.

[@ietsbram]

Retardosaurusrex yeah, but for that to matter you must realise at all times your seemingly/indistingishable true expirience is fake, and we are damn easy to mislead when it comes to that

[@schokoladenjunge1]

I'm on the path of a very unpopular opinion here, but I think I'd plug in. I was with you guys for a long time, but I stopped caring. Why? If we take Neorealism, that is, seeing each "reality" with its own rules, then there is no difference between a life lived regularly and one you experienced by machine. Also, from a solipsistic viewpoint, the difference does not make sense. And after all, it depends on the life philosophy you're following. Does meaning have importance in your life? Then you're certainly not a nihilist. Do you think life is meaningless, but you play by the rules, because why the hell not? You're an existentialist. For someone who doesn't value the inherent "rules" of life, the choice is completely free of bias. They may simply choose by preference. The values discussed here are key points of discussion in major philosophical theories, and I think this has not been discussed enough here.

[@alex_roivas333]

but are you plugging in for hedonistic reasons? because to a hedonist, one of the rules of life is that "pleasure has meaning" or "pleasure is good". Also, I'm an existentialist, it's not that "life is meaningless", exactly. It's that meaning is created by you, it doesn't exist "out there". But just because it doesn't exist outside of you, doesn't mean "life is meaningless" per se.

[@alex_roivas333]

***** well, by the colloquial definition,"hedonists" are purposeless thrill seekers then yes, I don't think they're looking for truth. But by the more philosophical definition, Hedonists have already found meaning: pleasure. I disagree with them, but that's what they believe.

[@acuerdox]

dont write a quote. give your honest opinion. what would you do?

[@Drudenfusz]

Well, since my physical experiences are shaped by my dysphoria and so I mostly feel pain and misery in my body, so I think I would try this machine as well and at least get something worthwhile out of it. And I don't care about truth anyway, but I would like to have my friends with me, so if the machine can create shared experience, everything would be great!

[@samvargas2868]

I somewhat disagree, but like the idea here. +

[@Beardedbraceface]

We must know pain to know pleasure. It is necessary to some degree in order to punctuate what pleasure is and feels like. Without opposition in all things everything becomes neutral. I feel like this contrast is essential to the human experience and the laws of the universe in general. Kind of like Newton's 3rd law of motion going beyond the physical and being part of the experiential. And I feel like a "good" life can be had even in circumstances that are seen as not entirely "pleasurable". Such as people that find joy while facing severe illnesses and physical adversity. Admittedly it makes it harder to see life as "good" when those things are happening but those that use it to punctuate the positive and SEEK after the good in life always inspire me. To me a "good" life isn't a list of checks and balances of totaling how much pleasure vs pain you've had, but a mindset in how you VIEW those experiences.

[@SuperRat420]

Disagree right in the first sentence.

[@megadog9305]

Diametric opposites are so rarely what they seem. The opposite of pleasure isn't pain, but a lack of pleasure (Emotional numbness?), in the same way that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. You don't need to know suffering to know the difference between sitting on a couch all day watching some infomercial and the thrills of, say, sky diving.

[@Beardedbraceface]

MRLN yeah I'd agree with you on that one. And it's why I don't feel like MY good life would necessarily be a good life for others. There are probably some things that are fairly universally sought after for pleasure, but like you said it is personal experience which differs from individual to individual.

[@Beardedbraceface]

Ben Sherson I see where you're coming from on that. I'd say that numbness and indifference are in my experience less desirable in some instances over pain or hate. I'll have to chew on your thoughts in my head for a bit.

[@wilsonlu1]

I'm in total agreement with this line of thinking. I see what you are getting at Ben, but I have to disagree. The lack of something is not always the diametric opposite. Sure, the opposite of having apples is not having apples. But when it comes to emotional experience it is more like traversing an X-axis. Pleasure would be a 10. Lack of pleasure (emotional numbness) would be a 0. Pain would be a -10. The further to the negative you have experienced, the greater difference you can see when you have a positive experience. If my entire life has been a 9 on the pleasure scale, and then I experience a 10, then sure I will see that as a more pleasurable experience. But if I have felt what a -10 feels like, then feeling the positive 10 will be an exponentially greater experience simply because of your mental frame of reference.

[@PhilosophyTube]

This was so much fun! Thanks Mike!

[@SciJoy]

To me the good life is stated best by this meme: “I bet we could go explore the galaxy if we could stop being dicks for like five minutes.” Humans have the ability to learn from each other and not start over with each generation. We can become kinder (even though it may not always seem like it), and we can do cool stuff like space travel, surgeries, KZbin videos, and millions of other things we could never do alone. I don’t want to live in a machine. I want to love, interact, and make awesome things with real people. We have the ability to bring things into existence and not just pick preprogramed experiences. A good life to me would be making the world kinder and more curious.

[@ietsbram]

SciJoy problem being you expect to realise the diffrence between the 'real' and "fake" worlds... what if you couldn't?

[@n4thanfv]

Having a good life is not being slave of your duties. In other words, whenever you are doing what you wanna be doing, that living a good life. If you are doing things you didn't want to, that ain't desirable.

[@n4thanfv]

I would plug in.

[@n4thanfv]

OK, I loved the video. Thanks a lot for this pleasureful experience. Pleasure must be shared. That's one way at looking at whether they are real or not.

[@calimerohnir3311]

Of course I would pluggin for all we know the universe we currently live in could also be a simulation

[@calimerohnir3311]

and the people who argue that you would be alone clearly need to watch the philisophical zombie video again

[@med2904]

That's exactly what I thought. But the thought of leaving forever my family and friends I made in this "potential reality simulation" would make me sad, so I'd do it only if they would go inside with me to experience this "real life-like MMORPG". Actually I think that making the experience machine more like a game where you sleep and go to work in your "real life" and in your free time all you do is go inside EM with everyone else who's important in your life and/or most of the other people on the planet to experience this global MMORPG would make it a lot less objectionable even for not-hedonists. It would become everyone's favorite past-time, especially in case that world of the future will become a grey technological distopia where even though everyone's basic needs are satisfied, people still crave for experiences they can't get in real life. And honestly with today's VR games quickly becoming more affordable for average Joe, I think a scenario like that is very close to the future we'll be experiencing in a few decades, without even realizing we're living inside an experience machine.

[@officialmodsound]

This would be an assumption that hypothetically similar technology exists outside of our own; Producing a simulation.

[@slottmachine]

It would only be assuming that the output of said outer-universe technology is similar to our own in the sense that something is simulating, but that does not imply anything about what the simulator actually is.

[@officialmodsound]

+Hillel Slott You are right, I realized the shortcomings of this argument after I sent it, didn't feel like being that guy that deletes after commenting lol.

[@estranhosidade9918]

Well, if you really wanna know: No. I'm not having a good life. I'm wasting my life, and this scares the hell of me. All this because I'm afraid of living and take chances, I just got used to live in a conforte zone. And I just try to not thinking about it. But some times I can't escape from the illusion that I create and I KNOW that I'm wasting my life and that I'm a burden to my family. And the worst part, I guess, is the fact that I know that things could be different, that it doesn't need to be this way.

[@alex_roivas333]

how are you "wasting" your life? Me too! although, welcome to the club ... all life is ultimately wasted :(

[@ietsbram]

Espurr depends on the pourpose you give to life in general, if you, like a lot of people believe they pourpose of live is increasing enthalpy while decreasing usefull energy, you are doing fine, as long as you dont kill (futur) liveforms

[@alex_roivas333]

Bram iets what a strange physics based purpose ^_^ just cuz life does that doesn't mean that's life's purpose. In the end we die, and whatever purpose there was, is lost :(

[@ietsbram]

Espurr why should our purpose involve us as end goal?

[@alex_roivas333]

Bram iets it doesn't NEED to involve us, but since we're the ones that decide upon the purpose, the purpose dies with us

[@jonathaneby1440]

I think a major part of "the good life" for me is making a difference. Living in the experience machine may be great for me, but it negates my ability to have a positive impact on other's lives. There will be negative impacts for sure, and the individual good I do will be largly insignificant, but I don't want my agency to do good in the world to be negated.

[@melissa_5444]

i agree with you on that. Helping and serving others is a sense of pleasure for many people and it impacts society in some form whether it be a huge impact or not

[@metatem1756]

You don't need to have a positive impact on other people's lives if they are inside the machine and are happy. Or what if the machine is like a shared dream or a theme park like west world and you can have a positive effect on people inside the machine. On a deeper level what if you are having a positive impact on simulated people inside the experience and seeing how that effects their world? How do you know these people you are seeing in real life aren't simulated?

[@mer7cer7]

Once other people are taken care of, all we want is pleasure. To what extent you care about other's welfare/pleasure or your own pleasure creates our morals as human beings.

[@Luiciones725]

Jonathan Eby By being impact-ful, doesn't that mean you want to be important. Like, you want to be remembered by as many people as possible?

[@Luiciones725]

***** I think that's way deeper than the OP intended.

[@houstonnewman4196]

I would anticipate that some viewers may have skepticism about the existence of unexperienced harms, and if this is the case, then the thought experiment cannot get of the ground for these viewers. So, I'll channel Thomas Nagel to try and convince these folks. Betrayal is a good example of an unexperienced harm. Sure, we can imagine someone who is betrayed and who is also totally unaware of this betrayal and who never comes to be aware of it, but consider what the oder of explanation is in the typical case. If you were to find out from your best friend s/he has betrayed you, you probably would not respond with "why did you tell me!?". What you would say instead is "why did you betray me!?". The badness of betrayal does not really lie in the experience of finding out about it. Rather, finding out that you've been betrayed is bad because being betrayed is bad -- and you don't have to experience your being betrayed. And this respects most kinds of moral relativism too since there is still a person for whom the betrayal is a harm. So, unexperienced harms are perfectly compatible with saying that things are only ever good or bad for some subject, or that there is no fixed, objective morality.

[@Visuwyg]

I think to me it would depend if the Experience Machine is networked. So I guess one part of "a good life" for me is human interaction? Hm. I do consider myself a Hedonist though.

[@alex_roivas333]

I think if you have rules for how you're gonna value pleasure (that other real humans have to be there) then are you really saying "pleasure is good"?

[@QuantumSeanyGlass]

no, he's saying that he doesn't think the AI would be good enough to entertain him properly.

[@alex_roivas333]

QuantumSeanyGlass IDK, I guess they could have meant that

[@cmckee42]

What if the simulated interaction was indistinguishable from real interaction?

[@Visuwyg]

Christopher McKee Damn, that's next level thought experimentation!

[@JakeFace0]

People's preferences are inherently irrational. Not bad. There's nothing inherently bad about preferring vanilla to chocolate. It's just irrational. Then our already-irrational preferences for a life of "detached and temperate pleasures" comes saddled with another real but irrational preference for those detached and temperate pleasures to not be simulated. I think that, if you wouldn't even remember not being in a simulation, it would make a tonne of sense to enter the tank but I don't think humans, in responding to this experiment, can truly imagine not remembering or being aware of the fact that they're living in a simulation, making their irrational preference for reality much more pertinent.

[@jamyangpelsang3099]

I thought you would bring up psychological egoism where instead of simply believing a good life "should" involve pleasure, a good life always "requires" pleasure. No matter how selfless you try to be, the good deeds you do are ultimately bringing you a positive metal mental state, you feel good that you helped someone out, which is technically pleasure. So in actuality every action is motivated by pleasure. Although this was argued against later on by philosopher William James who stated correlation vs. causation. That just because we happen to feel pleasure after doing something, it doesn't mean that pleasure we felt motivated us to do that thing in the first place. Sometimes we do things for pleasure. Other times we do things for other reasons and pleasure tends to be a "byproduct". Hedonism and Utilitarianism are always interesting topics...

[@romajimamulo]

impact. I want to make it so that after I die, I did something better than if I was never born. the experience machine reduces the impact of life to zero

[@PriusOmega]

Indeed. Life has meaning by bestowing _potential_ meaning onto future generations and future states our world, so that every generation piggy-backs on the success of previous ones to greater and greater heights. It is a ladder to climb, and you don't climb the ladder by opting out and sitting on any particular rung. Even the smallest of incremental climbs counts!

[@Noah-fn5jq]

What if I convince you that the Experience Machine is networked (this may be false... but you would never truly know). You would now believe that your actions are impacting those that are in the machine with you (even though there may not be). Point is: you may not have impact in real life... but it seems that you only care about the BELIEF that you do.

[@romajimamulo]

noah schaefferkoetter Only if everyone else does it.

[@Noah-fn5jq]

Romaji One of us are misunderstanding the other. What I'm saying is that your want to impact others has nothing to do with other people. If you - here and now, in this reality - are already in a simulation, you wouldn't care. If existence stops at the moment of your death, you wouldn't care. Why? Because you are CONVINCED that that isn't the case... and therefore it is only your BELIEF of your impact that allows you to hold on to this possible delusion. So I'll say again, it doesn't matter about the impact you have... only on the BELIEF that you have one.

[@romajimamulo]

noah schaefferkoetter It is not about being already in one. it is about volentarilly entering one

[@warpzone8421]

Look, this is real simple. If you're a hedonist, you want the machine to have an eject button. A hedonist doesn't need to provide any logical reason for why their preferences might appear to disagree with their philosophy. All they have to say is "I want to have the option to exit the machine." "But why?" "Because I feel like it."

[@IgnacioGuerendiain]

The only difference between the EM and "real life" is the consequencies. Let's say you are RIGHT NOW on a simulation, that does not changes anything you do or do not because the consequencies are the same, but if you know you can just reset or exit the simulation then you don't care and just enjoy like playing GTA.

[@adamvelazquez7336]

this gets me thinking of the definition of the "real world" we are told about as kids. The world where we aren't forgiven of being naive and making mistakes because we are children and we have to work to pay for things to stay alive. Which since I was a kid I'd never liked the idea of being told I never lived in the real world just because people keep paying for me, or I cannot feel the consequences of whatever it is I was doing. Except in all things there are consequences, even if it is just time lost from time spent in the Experience machine.

[@IgnacioGuerendiain]

Adam Velazquez I agree, however; if you know you just can reset or get out then you'll do things on the EM that you wont on this plane of reality. What I am pointing to is not the lack of consequences but the differences in consequences.

[@yat282]

Say you were living a great life though, and you found out that it wasn't real, and that you were actually miserable in the real world, so you had been plugged into an experience machine. Would you unplug? I'd argue that the "heroes" in The Matrix are the bad guys.

[@PsinkaJones]

Gage Baumgard I think once you know the truth you can't undo the damge it made. With new knowleg you gain perspective. You value that great life less because it wasnt true. In my experience. I was happier thinking ther is afterlife. Now im atheist and im depressed but i can't force myself to belive again just to be happy.

[@PsinkaJones]

Gage Baumgard I think once you know the truth you can't undo the damge it made. With new knowleg you gain perspective. You value that great life less because it wasnt true. In my experience. I was happier thinking ther is afterlife. Now im atheist and im depressed but i can't force myself to belive again just to be happy.

[@PsinkaJones]

Gage Baumgard I think once you know the truth you can't undo the damge it made. With new knowleg you gain perspective. You value that great life less because it wasnt true. In my experience. I was happier thinking ther is afterlife. Now im atheist and im depressed but i can't force myself to belive again just to be happy.

[@brockmckelvey7327]

I don't know about you guys, but I think I could only "plug in" for a couple of hours. Why? Because I can only really play video games for a couple hours. Even with the fact that the machine is a tailor-made world for me, I'd get bored. I get bored playing video games, even if I'm only ever completing action sequences. I'd get bored because there's no programmed boring sections to make the action/pleasure sections that much more pleasurable (like in real life). A machine that I could program to produce the most pleasurable simulation for me would never work. Mainly because I would never intentionally program something boring or mundane, and the second that I did actually get bored I could leave the machine. But without the boring/mundane/"normal" stuff, all the high pleasure scenarios wouldn't be all that pleasurable. Does anybody else get bored after playing games (or the same game) for a while? And do you feel you'd get bored in the experience machine?

[@SeiryuNanago]

If I were to enter this machine, I would worry that my life wouldn't have any meaning. I wouldn't be able to positively impact the life of others. Also, there would be no sense of growth in such a machine. I wouldn't learn anything or discover anything new. If the only feedback I get is positive feedback, how can I grow and get better at things? At some point, it would become boring to only experience pleasurable things. And also, I wouldn't be able to see what other people are up to. If they came up with new things. It would become stale in the long run.

[@ThePuppyTurtle]

I would be unwilling to enter the machine because I'd be stepping away from positive changes I could cause to the real world. It would be a very selfish decision to abandon everyone and everything else for the sake of my personal pleasure. I am obligated to instead attempt to effect positive change in the real world.

[@metatem1756]

How do you know you won't have a positive effect on the world while in the machine? What if everyone goes inside the machine? What if we are inside a simulation?

[@yitz7805]

I think that would be missing the point of the question if that were so, for then it would not be a true and perfect simulation any longer, influenced by the world around it...

[@Drudenfusz]

Isn't the idea that we could change the real world not just another fiction we keep telling ourselves?

[@ThePuppyTurtle]

sam carder The experiment doesn't mention anyone else going inside the machine and explicitly states that your body remains inert.

[@Cerebrosum]

ThePuppyTurtle The true way to go then is to strap on some cybernetics and reprogram ourselves to reward work and helping others with more positive stimulants than our bodies give naturally. Eternal bliss, eternal helping our fellow man.

[@dik4316]

A pleasure machine that gives you displeasure (by disappointment, to use the video's example) is not a pleasure machine by definition, now is it? The malfunction argument goes out the window for the same reason. On top of that, since there is no way to prove that all "real experiences" are "real" in the first place, anyone who makes their case for not using the machine on these grounds can go be miserable elsewhere.

[@alicepow593]

I guess I don’t have to do much imagining. How I would feel about living an experience that should be pleasurable but is undercut by inauthenticity? Well, let’s look at the 18 years of my life before I came out as a trans woman, shall we? There’s a reason so many trans people talk about ‘living your truth’ and ‘expressing your true self.’ Coming out as trans, I had to consider that I would be losing the positives of being treated like a man. People would not respect my authority or my intelligence as much and people might think and do some pretty nasty things to me. On the other hand, the emotional stress of living a lie undercut those experiences and negated their positive aspects in a lot of ways. I never felt connected to other people because there was this gnawing thing under the surface of my whole life that made it all feel distant and inauthentic. I chose to exit that experience machine(often referred to as 'the closet') and I entered a life that is more true even if it often tends to be less pleasurable, and even painful. I agree that pleasure is part of a good life but not all of it, because for me, authenticity is key. At a very deep level, I value the authentic over the pleasurable. I also think that a good life should not be all pleasure. I think it's important to experience a whole range of emotions. An excess of any will creat issues. Too much happiness and you might feel a lack of substance in your life. Too much sadness is easily overwhelming. Too much anger can consume you. Too much fear can paralyze you. Too much disgust can close you off. Too much surprise can numb you.

[@jessicaleclerc3469]

I feel ya, sister. At least for me, this all rings very true.

[@paperstarjar]

I don't know if this counts, but as a person with a mental health disability, simply CHOOSING to work on enjoying things more, seeing the happy in things that used to get clouded over and letting go of anger in favor of joy actually does seem like a better life. I know its no permanent plug-in, but it's made my last few years way better than the ones before it...

[@linguaphilly]

I don't like terms like 'real' and 'truth' anyway (my world being real is nothing but an assumption) so imma plug in

[@grassyclimer6853]

yes plug in the damn machine

[@EmpereurNapoleonex]

There is one assumption that underlies the rest of the argument presented in this video; that we are starting in the truest and realest of world one could have. It would be useless to talk about preference of irl over a simulated experience if we cannot guarantee that we are in that "irl" state in the first place, or whether that state is achievable at all. Therefore, I would argue that one doesn't need the experience to be true. It just needs to seem true, i.e. one only needs the illusion of "truth" when it comes to those experiences. And so, there isn't much difference between choosing to plug-in or not,....aside from the knowledge beforehand that you are in a simulation. BUT if you can simulate a world and eliminate of the "player knowledge," to use roleplaying jargon, so that the illusion of the truthiness of the world exists, then the irl and simulated world would be truly indistinguishable.

[@hellishgengar2473]

This is exactly what I was thinking as well. If you take into account the recursive nature of a matrix type reality, in that eventually each version of the simulation will birth its own simulation, there is no way to know if you are actually in a simulation unless someone tells you that you are. Ultimately it is irrelevant whether any reality is the most real as you can never know if it actually is, all we can do is enjoy life as it occurs.

[@EmpereurNapoleonex]

***** yea, because even if someone tells you that the "reality" you are living in is simulated or not, that conversation is part of that said reality, which means that conversation cannot be trusted, which brings us back to the conclusion that the "realness" of reality is ultimately untestable

[@sciwiz12]

Truth was a part of Epicurus' hedonism who brought books with him into his commune and studied the truths of human happiness. Truth is a big part of my pleasure, no experience machine would, for me, be complete unless I could use it to approach closer approximations of the truths of reality. Pain is pleasure to a masochist and every person is slightly a masochist.

[@sciwiz12]

I mean, what can't be bundled into pleasure if it's not something which you could or would desire such as true and even some limited painful experiences. There's a really interesting concept in Lucifer comics, wherein those sinners cast into hell are the people who believe they deserve hell and beg to be punished. Their pain is extracted and turned into a highly euphoric and pleasurable drug for the demons. If their pain is desired and pleasure can be extracted from it, is hell not a place of utmost hedonism?

[@PauLtus_B]

I think it's interesting to bring up Inception here. If you didn't know dreams in that movie stand as metaphor for movies. As it is a movie that might all be taking place in a dream, as well as giving someone a not-real experience that would influence the "real world". With that it also questions if it would matter if the entire movie would indeed take place in a dream, would it be any different as it is still a movie? I think the interesting thing to consider is that even though experiences may not actually take place they can still be very real and meaningful.

[@PauLtus_B]

It was really hard to write all those lines. I hope I made it clear...

[@HAngeli]

You made it clear.

[@PauLtus_B]

H Angeli Good :)

[@HelixChoirOfficial]

I would worry that my work, impact, and legacy would have no effect on reality. Someone could pull the plug on the EM and that virtual world and my contributions to it would be lost forever. However, if our current idea of reality was itself some sort of simulation, as Elon Musk has proposed, then perhaps it wouldn't matter. Then it would come down to my emotional experience. Would the grieving of my emotional attachments in this world be worth the potential benefit of moving into a new one? Would I need to program in a blissful forgetting of my previous loved ones, experiences, and achievements into the EM or would I have to deal with a lifetime (or at the very least many years) of painfully recalling the ones I left behind? It doesn't seem to matter whether or not my emotions are "authentic", but that the emotions that naturally arise will be my own "experience" of the truth. But in that case, would the EM machine be in fact preferable assuming it was programmed in a way to perfectly cater to my emotional well-being? What if the EM machine was programmed so that it could consistently create emotionally rewarding and meaningful scenarios without diminishing returns? For now, I assume my current reality is true and therefore more meaningful. But far in the future, could the mechanics of what gives rise to "meaning" in the brain be so thoroughly understood and exploited that meaning itself, seen in biological rather than philosophical terms, be exploited so well by the EM that it adequately transcends our current experience, making the idea of "true" irrelevant?

[@Xatzimi]

Wow, I've been behind on this channel for awhile, but this video definitely caught my eye because I am a hedonist. I would indeed say yes to plug into the machine without hesitation. I consider my experiences of media both real and the most enjoyable parts of my life, and indeed I think that pleasure is the only important thing. Additionally considering there are experiences I won't be able to have in real life would solidify wanting to go in to experience those. I also think that the emphasis on eudiamondc happiness is societally enforced, as it encourages social interaction and progress; though I would consider it less pleasurable to the individual (or at least myself) compared with a hedonistic life of pleasure.

[@OrbeezRando]

I would suggest that your machine will require a certain age before you will be permitted to even attempt using it. thinking as I am writing, what age would we say would be appropriate for somebody to suddenly disconnect from the world and experience total pleasure? Wouldn't still have the conundrum of Heaven? Whereas if you get everything you want, it is meaningless and therefore is not what you want, and becomes boring. When people find themselves trying to recreate struggles and pain just so that they could overcome them? If so, why not then just experience real life? is it possible that this question will come up again in humanity's future when we hit post-scarcity?

[@therealquade]

A Good life is a life that the individual is Satisfied with. The more a person is satisfied and comfortable with in the moment and in the end, the better the life they had. Satisfaction, and Pleasure, are NOT the same thing. For example, a murder trial is not a pleasurable experience, but adequately serving justice and ensuring the murderer receives an appropriate punishment, can be quite satisfying, but that is not the same as pleasure, Moreover it might not be satisfying because something about said case could have been wrong, or it might have been so bad that you don't want anything to do with the case even with justice served, and no justice served would ever be satisfying. As for the experience machine, any experiences within the machine, are the "consumption" of fiction, and can only be meaningful or satisfying, part of a good life, If one could also leave the machine, and potentially share the experience with others. For example, in Star Trek TNG, There's the holo-deck, which effectively is like the experience machine, Except that we wouldn't say that their lives, or even there time within the holodeck, isn't valid, satisfactory, pleasurable, or not a good life. It's only when the entirety of ones life is within this fiction, and none of it shared, that it is guaranteed to not be a good life. It would be the same as living in isolation in a library with every written work mankind ever produced, and all the food that any culture has ever produced, but no other human interaction. The lack of interaction, that literal isolation and lack of realism at any moment in time, is what makes it a bad life, but having that experience shared with other people, and with the ability to leave, would be fantastic. I'd probably kill a man for an experience machine that I can "get in and out of". particularly if it was part of me, like a cyborg.

[@frangallo]

I was thinking that the 'enjoyment' of life experiences requires, in some ways, the contrast with suffering. Human life is tragic. The destiny of life is ... death. Perhaps, I think, the 'meaning' of life is linked to love, to 'enjoyment'. But that's only possible because we are mortals and we suffer. What do you think?

[@SuperRat420]

A good life is literally meaningless. There isn't a point.

[@los_litres]

I would attempt to have a discussion with you, but then I realised your name was "GayDicks420"

[@SuperRat420]

Tomas Gonzalez Fine, sidestep a conversation like that. Nice cop out, friendo. But, nah, what's your argument?

[@los_litres]

.

[@los_litres]

.

[@SuperRat420]

Tomas Gonzalez So, that's a yes, then.

[@Shousaphine]

But does your body degrade faster being sedentary in an Experience Machine? In which case, what is the math of which life has the most pleasure? When I am not greiving, I would avoid the machine. When I am greiving, I would want to be plugged into the machine. There is no "yes, sign me up 100% always", but there isn't an "ew, no, avoid 100% always!" either. Then it becomes a temporary want for escapism, rather than wanting to be plugged into a machine. There is also the thought of abandoning people I care about. Could I really be that selfish?

[@jondreauxlaing]

Here's another question that might be meaningful in this discussion. What would you be willing to die for? I find all of these discussions of "good life" pointless if you don't consider mortality as part of the equation. If one lives a life of only pleasures then they will never experience the feeling that there was something greater than themselves, worth sacrificing for. If I'm in the EM (and I'm aware of it), then nothing in that experience could possibly be worth my life. It's all rather narcissistic and myopic. Maybe that's a component of a good life: having something for which you'd face your mortality; something that is worth more than your good life. It's more of a question for people to consider; I'm not necessarily positing it as my conviction.

[@Beardedbraceface]

I have always loved the quote "If you have noting to die for, then what do you have to live for?" At dark times in my life I have used it as a way to make a list of all the people, liberties and ideas I would be willing to give my life for. Then I remind myself that "giving your life" doesn't always mean giving it through death, it also means giving every second of life by LIVING life for those things.

[@jondreauxlaing]

Never suggested that you define your life by it. I was just saying it was a component. And it's only as "middle school" as what you choose. No more middle school than defining it based on TV shows, pizza, and slapstick shadenfreud. That's not a dig, btw. You do you. I'm just saying it's a little short sighted to only talk about life without talking about death.

[@SuperRat420]

Jon Laing "If one lives a life of only pleasures then they will never experience the feeling that there was something greater than themselves, worth sacrificing for." Yeah, that's bullshit, and a dig at those who don't consider offing themselves for something worth doing. If you aren't willing to die for something, you never feel like something is greater than yourself? Hardly. The idea of 'sacrificing yourself' is flawed at best. Your death is meaningless. Your life is meaningless. You cannot add meaning to it, save for your own mind, which is, you've guess it, trivial and unimportant. Dying for something and living for nothing are one in the same in the end.

[@jondreauxlaing]

I never said anything about "meaning". I'd also like to add that I was asking the question, not positing it as fact (I said "maybe" several times). So, why is it bullshit? Is it because life and death have no inherent meaning? If we're going that route, then the conversation is dead in the water, because there would be no such thing as "good life". Lastly, I would say that "offing" one's self is a mischaracterization of what I was suggesting. I'm not suggesting that one HAS to die for something, more suggesting that seizing agency in your death can be considered a component of seizing agency in your life.

[@SuperRat420]

Jon Laing That's my point. There is no such thing as a good life.

[@billyuno]

Wow. I would totally get in the machine, but only if it were programmed with A) Experiences I couldn't actually have in real life, like being a member of thr opposite gender, going on amazing LOTR or Sci-Fi adventures, which is what makes video games so fun, and B) Ups and downs, because the best highs are the ones that come after lows; Triumphs over evil, anger leading to revenge, satisfaction being acheived after adversity, and C) the ability to take care of my body, or even improve it while I'm out by increasing my metabolism via drugs, and stimulating my muscles via electrodes. The last one leads to the one thing I would fear: Cost. If it's a fix'r-up'r vaca for the brain it could lead to you having a more pleasurable reality. Because let's face it, who can afford to retire in VR these days? On the other hand, a VR hospice makes total sense. I mean it worked on Futurama.

[@C0deH0wler]

If I were to go into the Experience Machine, I would worry about there no longer being a way to transition. I don't worry about which experience is "real" as long as there is a way to transition. Also, my reluctance to entering the Machine fully doesn't bog down to which is "real', but the thoughts "will my body degregate, because of limitations of that original reality", and "What if someone stabs me in my original reality". It's the limitation of the original reality that keeps me reluctant to experience life in the Machine. The best way to stay healthy is to use the Machine, or like it, moderately. Even if I was a digital person, my home reality would still need to be maintained in the human reality. Note: this comment was written in a perspective assuming the desire to spend life in the Machine. I do not necessarily hold this perspective.

[@vakusdrake3224]

I would also worry because some variations of the thought experiment involve all your memories of your previous life being erased/replaced, and I have a strong preference not to have my mind tampered with like that.

[@C0deH0wler]

You worry someone will tamper with your body in the original reality, aye?

[@vakusdrake3224]

C0deH0wler I don't actually think of my body as a part of me really. It's just meat the only thing that's really _you_ in any useful sense is the information and ongoing mental process in your brain. Though I don't think the medium that information/process is on makes any difference.

[@C0deH0wler]

To me, the body IS you. The brain is just a central organ. However, I do agree that we are information, mental processes. But essentially think that we are information. Thus, I also think of the processes of the fight and flight nerves that work without the brain, the chemical processes in our other organs, and the latch-memory of our non-nerve-cells. Those to me can be information that makes us, us. I think chemical processes can be classified as information. However, if you think that they can't be classified as such, and is not a part of 'you', I still think that we are more than our mental brain processes, at least. Thoughts?

[@vakusdrake3224]

C0deH0wler The rest of the body just sends signals to the brain, the brain can totally do ~ok without that, with life support (experiments have kept monkey brain alive outside the body.). Sure you wouldn't want to live without the sort of stimulation that currently requires a body. But to pretend as though the brain is merely a central organ, seems as laughable as saying that the keyboard is a vital part of a computers processing.

[@demoninbed]

Welp, I'm currently not doing well, but thanks for asking. Stupid silly relationship drama, difficulty recovering from substances, potential mental disorders that have led me on a merry chase trying to get treatment, and some other stressors. There's the election, of course, and I did around 12 Shakespeare productions this last summer. I moved to a Portland after graduating with a degree in theater. I've been substitute teaching since, but that doesn't make enough for rent so I had to move in with my family. In my culture (maybe just my family) there's a social stigma with that, silly as that may be. Funny enough, almost all of my friends don't care, and many of them had to do the same. It's fine with them, but I always thought that I'd get out of school and support myself and do what I love. So, since our country prioritizes personal training over teaching in terms of compensation, I also got my certification as a personal trainer. I can't get a job at a gym though because I'm touring a pair of children's shows in rep all throughout Oregon and California. Honestly, all the stressors that I have are things I did myself. I thought I'd be able to make a living teaching and acting. I'm planning on moving more into film from theater, writing more, freelance training, and starting a business so that I can move my career anywhere. Currently I'm thinking San Francisco, Philadelphia, Peace Corps, Americorps, or Missoula Children's. They already offered me a job, but I turned it down for the roles I was getting with Portland Actor's Ensemble, Original Practice Shakespeare, and Salt and Sage. I don't regret that decision. I feel like I took an extra year at my conservatory just to study Shakespeare. I might write a bit to try and digest that. Maybe I'll write a book. I'm already working on a new script. It's a post-apocalyptic sci-fi with a love triangle, a revolution, and tensions over a rapidly changing world, culture, and economy. I'm not sure if it'll be a video or play. I think people need to believe that the things they care about will be better off in the future. As we near the end of life this becomes more important, and since we'll be gone there's more worry over whether we did enough. I said "believe" as opposed to "know" earlier because although we also need to know that these things are true. If we don't, then is the impact we think we had a lie as well? Our world shakes just for that second of disbelief. No one knows what'll come crashing down. The things I need to know will be better off after I'm gone are the world, my friends, and my family. To fix this I engage with politics through various means, look into means of increasing my income to support myself and others if the time comes, and various other small things that infuse my life. By the way, honestly, how are you?

[@SupLuiKir]

How am I doing? Well I've successfully convinced myself that I don't have crippling depression and have not succumbed to existential dread. I also have immunized myself against anger over the course of the past few years by replacing rage with fake laughter. I'm perfectly fine living by myself in a cheapo 1-bedroom apartment living off the government using my Autism diagnosis and never planning to get a job ever. I'm planning on never getting in a romantic relationship nor wanting one. Emotions are useless and should be discarded in preference to cold-hard logic. There is no god, and we killed him. Capitalism will suffocate itself and civilization will crumble within a century and I want to be there to watch the fireworks until I'm inevitably murdered by post-apocalyptic raiders.

[@Kenkire]

3:25 If I did step into the machine, I would become the cocaine rat. I would never leave. I would waste away and die. My life is full of being too poor to have the kinds of experiences I would like. But, conversely, because I have the kind of life that has so few "memorable" experiences, I cherish every one of them more. "If every day is a sunny day, then what's a sunny day?" Without the down times, I don't think we can truly enjoy the great times.

[@repker]

Nah, I'd go in the machine, zero worries at all. Humans can't conceptualize an infinity, and if this machine gives me infinite pleasure, I'd be a fool to not plug in. Any amount of irrational human desire for 'realness' would be instantly dwarfed by the magnitude of happiness I would get in the machine, if it is defined to do as such. Though, I'm a near robot so it's pretty easy for me to get past the lack of 'realness' in it, where maybe most would still have trouble. Really this thought experiment is good at highlighting the often irrational desire for truth humans have, and in it it's futility. Well, maybe for me that's how I take it.

[@cohenschwarz5421]

I don't think that the hedonist would necessarily have to enter the The Experience Machine in order to stick to his hedonistic beliefs. You yourself showed displeasure (as I think most of us would) by the thought of living "an unreal life". In other words; it is more pleasurable for people to live a "real life" with fewer real pleasures, than it is to live "an unreal life" with fake pleasures. The realness of life therefore seems to be a pleasure in and of itself, something over and above (at least for some. As stated in the video: hedonism/pleasure and the criterion's thereof are subjective) However, if one was born directly into the Experience Machine, having no knowledge of the "real world", I would argue that that would most likely result in a better life - ignorance is bliss/the realness of it truly is real, at least from a subjective point of view i.e. for all we know, we might already be trapped in the Matrix and be ignorant of it, but this would not impede on our happiness.

[@TheRecoki]

I feel like, even though you argue that hedonism is more than carnal and superfluous pleasures at the start of the video, those ideas about the philosophy still affect the rest of your thesis. As I understand hedonsim (and the reason I subscribe to it) its core ideology is really a spin on Nihilism (not talking about timelines of thought). A meaningless world is one where only the pleasures we experience daily have any real meaning. Beyond that, all those things you oposed to "pleasures" as couterpoints to not step in the machine are, as I see it, pleasures by themselves. Knowing if your world is "real" or wanting to be in the "most real possible" world may not seem like pleasures, but the feeling of certainty sure seems like it to me. Wanting your actions to have an impact on the real world is. Being with your family is. If all those pleasures were covered by the machine then the true hedonist would step in. As it stands in your argument, the machine still does not cover all pleasures, and therefore is not the true hedonistic haven. Even if the argument were to be made that the machine provides more pleasures than the real world, I would argue back that hedonism does not only concern itself with quantity, also quality, If I were a person who values more the pleasures found inside the machine than those found outside, again, as a true hedonist I should enter if I want to keep my integrity. You posit it would imply I would be leaving behind family and friends. Again, that would keep me from entering the machines, as the happines I find in my interactions with them far outweights any other. (to make sure that is not creepy, I am not talking about any "carnal" pleasure. Except food. Does the machine have food? Then I'm going straight in) (sorry if not all sentences make 100% sense. English is not my first language, and explaining philosophy might stretch my idiom muscles a bit too much)

[@AutodidacticPhd]

If the machine could create any pleasurable experience and what you found pleasurable was a "true" life, then it would have to have a way to give you the experience of a "true" life or it wouldn't be the machine it claims to be... basically, all the terms in the discussion are so mushy that they just wind up pushing any real solutions to the question back a step rather than solving them. Sorta like the famous problem of the " need for a first cause". If you need a cause for all things, then the "first cause" also needs a cause... otherwise you don't need a cause for all things. If your definitions for things like "pleasure" and "true experience" are completely subjective then how you use them to define a "good life" is also subjective... In short, we not only aren't talking about "the Truth" of "the matter", we haven't even found a way to tell if we are talking about a particular "matter" for which there is a unique "Truth", much less whether or not our statements correspond to that "Truth".

[@checkmate080]

The idea that pleasure is only one of multiple factors which make a "good life" is something I completely agree with, that no experience is objectively bad or good, but according to your definition of pleasure that would still make you a Hedonist even if you preferred the real world. If this episode makes people ~want~ to feel all the things real life makes you feel, it means they derive pleasure from sadness, guilt, stress, everything, since they want to feel those things. Therefore, wanting to live in real life (or a perfect simulation of real life, true) is still Hedonistic. The difference between real life and a perfect simulation of it, to expand on that, i think is just a state of mind. I remember one of your fallacy videos talked about the belief that "natural is better", but I think theres an equally fallacious belief in that "real is better". If it really is a perfect simulation, it shouldn't matter whether or not you think it's "real".

[@BlinkyLass]

With a thought experiment like this, I think it should be a reasonable assumption that the experience machine works as advertised with no glaring defects. The distinction between true and non-true experiences is not quite meaningful in this context. It's an unsolved problem (which will probably never be satisfactorily decided one way or another) whether we are already living in a simulated universe. Furthermore, everything we experience in life is already mediated through our senses and interpreted by our brain, so it could be said that reality is already virtual to us, regardless of whether we are in a simulation, or in a simulation within a simulation. The movies and stories the video brought up give some insight into the thought experiment. It should be noted that all of the characters that start to harbour doubt about the reality they're in do so only because something feels unsatisfyingly off about their respective realities. This is caused either by glitches in the system or an unrealistic environment. Both of these are implementation problems that do not necessarily argue against the Experience Machine. It could always be improved to give a more robust experience that better aligns with the mind's expectations of reality. Nor is it necessary that the Experience Machine gives only unceasing bland pleasures. Even video games are designed to give us moments of frustration punctuated by reward and accomplishment. The movie _Total Recall_ contains plenty of action scenes that cause pain and anxiety to the main character, so an Experience Machine can be as nuanced as one can imagine. A life inside an EM needs not be one without responsibility or relationships. They'd be virtual, but that distinction, as said earlier, could be meaningless in principle. Existing social ties and life responsibilities are really the only arguments against the EM that stand up, IMO.

[@mochajoe19]

Would the ideal pleasurable experience machine not include everything in the real world that you would want in it, such as family or friends? Would it not almost be necessary to remove the memory of the previous life or at least the memory of entering the machine? This would also make the whole real or not question moot as you would die before realizing you were experiencing “fake experiences”.

[@theodore970]

One of the problems I see in this arises from the middle path. The buddha first had this pleasurable life with no pain. Then he realized that that life was untrue and abandon it to seek asceticism. Finally, arriving at the middle path. Realizing that to enjoy the pleasure of life you must also know it's pain. Agent Smith also says that this happens to the people in the matrix, first they made the matrix a paradise, but the people rejected it so they remade the matrix into what is was. Humans need the contrast. You could argue that that second version of the matrix is still a pleasure machine they have just dosed it with the right amount of pain to keep the experience "real" enough to keep the humans engaged. From the perspective of those humans it would be real. For me though I would stay out of the brain box if given the choice. To me the pains of life that have made the pleasure more sweet work in no small part because they are both unpredictable. Falling in love is just as surprising as my lung collapsing. If all experience is programmed I fear losing the nuance of surprise.

[@pikamontr]

I...I don't know what I want out of life, what I consider a "good life". I know some elements that I'd absolutely adore and would make my life better, but there's always something missing. Some sort of thought provoking, meaningful comment that will finally make me realize what it is that I'm missing. I don't generally think I'm unhappy either, tho. I am troubled a lot, but given what I understand regarding limits of the human expereince, I'm not...Unhappy I guess? I feel like maybe this comes from a feverishly conditioned "you can't get everything you want in life". it's almost like I'm _expecting_ not to be fully pleasured. As you said in the video, such a place is extremely alien to us, we wouldn't know to trust it or not... But I guess, deep in my heart, if the machine knew what would really satisfy me, then I'd take it. I'd probably go right for it, because I'm tired of struggling.

[@thetinomen]

The only value to "truth" is in sharing it with others, otherwise all of our experience is "true". So as said elsewhere I think as long as the experience machine can be shared with others, or I could be convinced it is, I could happily be a hedonist.

[@flunkedlunch7993]

It seems like the want for a "true experience" might be related more towards not wanting to wake up from the "false" experience and find your "true" one lacking. I can't help but draw a parallel between this and online dating. You have a bunch of people that would never try it because "what if it's actually a guy on the other end." These also seem to me to be the same people that claim that your online friends aren't real friends because "you haven't met them in real life." To these people the online relationships aren't "real" experiences. We feel like they are though. So what would be the difference between these experiences and those acquired in the experience machine?

[@SendyTheEndless]

Acceptance, growth and change are all important to me. I try not to be happy, but content. Not "merely content" asin a few steps between "awesome" and "meh", but just at peace with my lot in life, and a sense that I am improving it under my own steam. Creativity also plays a massive role in my life, it's what I do inbetween all the other stuff that gets in the way, be it trying to make my friends laugh, writing music, or dabbling in game design, I'd like to feel those ideas are "places" that I am "exploring" and inside the machine, deep down I might know that I was actually writing someone else's "novel" or musical opus. However, I come from a place of relative comfort. If I were a refugee, on the run from killing and crossfire, or someone homeless with little power to express myself in the ways I can now (technology, having a roof over my head, etc), I'd probably choose the Machine. Essentially, I am spoilt. If shit got real, I might change my mind :)

[@theodinspire]

I wonder how much people's hesitation to the experience machine despite their acceptance of preference hedonism as a measure of a good life stems from our existence as animals. Pleasurable experiences are evolutionarily there to promote the success of our replication of our genome. Inb4 someone says "but there are so many things we do for pleasure that don't contribute to our success as reproductive beings": the major factor for success for humans as an animal species is our highly (para/eu)social behavior, especially in the transmission of memes and culture. And so these things that we do for pleasure that don't stem directly from the success of the individual as an organism is instead rooted in the success of the social group's success as a genetic line. And so we don't feel good about the experience machine because it doesn't feel culturally productive to the welfare of our society.

[@humanbeing1429]

Plot twist: we are living in a simulation and our real bodies are from another dimension. Hell/Heaven is the reward/punishment that awaits when we exit this simulation by dying.

[@WhammyReviews]

Similar to Sumner's point, Peter Singer & Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek in their book "The Point of View of the Universe" argue that the reluctance to plug in to the machine is a understandable hesitance that is the result of the natural tendency of people to be risk adverse and have a bias towards the status quo. They even discussed experiments where individuals were randomly assigned to conditions in which either reality or being plugged in were the status quo condition and found that when being plugged in was the status quo people were much more willing to say that they were willing to be plugged back in compared to Nozick's original scenario. The same situation is at hand: go out into 'reality' or be plugged into the experience machine, but simple change of framing can drastically affect the probability of an individual deciding to stay plugged in. This is especially true once you start assigning them to different conditions of "reality." For example, in one experiment people were randomly assigned to different scenarios about what that the reality that awaited them outside of the machine. Either they were in a maximum security prison, a millionaire, or a control condition with no information. About 87% of the people in the prison condition said they would prefer to return to the machine, and even in the millionaire condition about half the people said they would still go back in. So if people valued true, active experiences as Nozick suggested, then there shouldn't have been as much variability in people's willingness to plug in simply by changing the framing of the scenario.

[@macmaniac77]

I am. At least it seems to me that I exist and that my life is better than 99% of all people currently living today. Though my life is not pure pleasure and hedonism I sure enjoy a hearty fill fit for a prince. Mind you much of my discomfort and pain arises from the University I am going to, had it my way we would all be working this together and rise the system from which we all prosper. Alas I still seem to live a true life. I would rather not be so displeased with the vast coffers of knowledge and wisdom that have been so graciously provided for me, not because I don't enjoy the pleasures of knowledge, but because I am required to wade through a system which has been attempting to mold me since I was turned on its path years ago before I was sentient! I am rebellious and refuse to fit in their crappy mold! If anything it is I who wish to mold my own future! However, it seems that those who make it through this mold(those called graduates) do significantly better than those who do not, that is the information I am told anyway. I do not wish to be molded I wish to provide a far more advanced and capable mold! One which my many other less fortunate brothers and sisters would be able to prosper from! I think there is likely to be too much red tape for me alone to do anything about this industrial molding facility. Those with good intentions have been trying for quite some time(and we know where the road paved with good intentions goes) This is not a new rebellion, though the speed at which human knowledge is moving is beyond any individual, making it all even more difficult. Which makes the notion of an individually run institution all the more unreasonable. I want to enjoy the modern gardens of philosophical and technological contemplation as socrates and the greeks first enjoyed theirs! A place for those inclined to think could go to do so, and share their wisdom and prowess helping others rise as they rose too! The voices in the back of my head are saying we cannot have a utopian society because its parameters would need to remain the same while we are dynamic and change constantly. To reconcile this we would need a way of agreeing upon guidelines and rules by which the nature of our problems can be regularly mitigated. Ethereum seems an interesting platform on which we could build a group capable of willing the appropriate fixes to our constitution as needed. In a group such as this I would suggest that the first rule be: Exchanges must always benefit both parties involved, otherwise there should be no transaction. This combined with the intellect of reasonable people at scale and we have a decision making entity capable of considering far more options and asking far better questions than any individual could possibly imagine in a lifetime. If I am able to see the world become a giant brain with light speed connections, I think I will be able to answer your question with the answer: GOOD To conclude, I am quite happy with my life, though I have no end of ideas how it could be better and simultaneously improve many other persons/intelligences/animals lives as well. Let us create a rising tide so that we may all prosper. Thank you for asking me how I am, I have been dying to tell someone. Goodnight...

[@JoshuaHillerup]

This weirdly ties into questions of AI. For me a huge requirement of a happy life is meaningful social interactions. To have this experience machine work for me it would require the simulation to have deep and meaningful social interactions with made up not people that completely seem like people. If these were actual AI beings (or other humans in a networked simulation) I can see how this life could be meaningful in a "true" way. The only way for this thought experiment to work is for it to somehow be possible to have amazing simulations of people that aren't people (something I personally think is impossible).

[@CanegmSemse]

What is good in life? To crush your enemies, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[@FirstRisingSouI]

I care about what is true. That's why I'm not religious anymore.

[@AspelShuyin]

What if the Experience Machine has social media connection? I mean, everything does these days.

[@AbiSaad]

I will definitely plug in. I personally think people seeking "real"experiences are either really lucky and have all the money/resources/time they need to have real experiences that also bring them joy, or just pretentious hipsters . My ideal life is not only one that is pleasurable but also (and something that wasn't mentioned here) one that is comfortable. if I lived in a virtual world I wouldn't have to worry about a single thing, which will take all the stress away and allow me to REALLY have fun when I'm having it, instead of being anxious 24/7.I wouldn't change that feeling of complete relief and calmness for anything. Also, the brain is what makes the trick so why it should matter!? after all "you ARE a soul, and HAVE a body" not the other way around ( if the soul exist, it's located on the brain).

[@vaxojimshiashvili3454]

I wish I could lucid dream. I would exist for that.

[@levishu991]

I am currently in an average emotional state of subpar, but I am working on getting an average of ok next year. Also, in the EM machine, you could live an entire life time in only a few seconds if the machine could also tap into your perception of time, making your body hyper aware of all stimuli and use that as the blank canvas to give you a lifetime of happiness. As long as there was an emergency shut off mechanism in case of malfunction.

[@ryanschultze381]

For a while, I sat wondering why I was so uneasy about the idea of plugging in to the EM. I most definitely value pleasure and satisfying desire. On a surface level, it seems almost ridiculous not to, should the machine be able to simulate any desired experience. What could possibly be better in a life in which you don't have to work to attain your desires? On one level though, it does seem to me that working to achieve want you want imparts more value into the act of achieving said thing. Perhaps this is where the sense of 'real' comes from? The fact that you know you have used your own energy and power to create the desired experience is inescapable when the memory of putting the work in is fresh in your mind. There seems to be an almost egotistical pleasure in the knowledge that you yourself have bent reality to your will to create the desired experience. The sense of obstacles over come perhaps? But it gets a bit hazy when we consider how the limits of the experience machine extend Should the machine perfectly simulate more nuanced pleasures such as the above mentioned one, is it then such a bad idea to plug in? If this machine could simulate the displeasure of work for the sake of the satisfaction of overcoming strife whats so bad about it? Well at this point in our thinking, what would be the incentive to plug in? Strife is achievable in real life, more than that it's unavoidable. Same goes for pleasure. There are only a few situations I can think of that would justify plugging into the machine. To name two: 1.) Effort put into achieving pleasure does not impart more value into that pleasure for you. 2.) Situational incentive. You cannot act on your desires due to (probably physical or societal) restrictions on your person. It would then make sense to plug in to a perfectly simulated reality in which the only difference is that its possible to act on your desires. After some consideration though, I'd probably not plug in. Great thought experiment though. 10/10 would thought again. :)

[@gigglysamentz2021]

I was expecting something more interesting ._.

[@Ruby_V_]

I value the advancement of science and technology above all else. I would only plug into such a machine if it would allow me to contribute to science and technology in a greater capacity.

[@Diplomastronaut]

I wouldn't, because it sounds like the backdrop to a Twilight Zone episode and those don't ever end up as desired.

[@retardosaurusrex360]

I think that hedonism still has validity when you consider how you define a life filled with pleasure . What gives you more pleasure: constant pleasure, or a greater feeling of pleasure at certain times? What if I feel greater pleasure from having completed something or worked hard to achieve something than constantly having good times given too me? A comparison might be using cheat codes in a video game; it still gives a feeling of pleasure to mess around with invincibility or all the best weapons in a game but, for me at least, it feels better to have worked for the best weapons and worked to be near invincible. Therefore, I am still following hedonistic theory in trying to experience the most pleasure but, for me, I feel the most pleasure from achieving something and having that feeling of achievement. Maybe I'm misinterpreting hedonism but that's how I see it. Also, I think a main reason that the experience machine might not be that good is that humans are very social beings and the knowledge that everyone you thought loved you is fake or that their love is an act completely destroyed any pleasure.

[@ietsbram]

Retardosaurusrex you build on the fact that you would realise the fact that there is a "real" and a projected world. I want to challenge you and want you to imagine the senario in which the machine would make you believe the life it project onto you is in fact real, would you still not enter?

[@jonathaneby1440]

Retardosaurusrex Your saying exactly what I'm thinking.

[@retardosaurusrex360]

Bram iets How could you not remember that it's all not real? Even if you sometimes forget, surely you'd remember sometimes? If your memory before using the machine erased, then sure, the machine is indistinguishable from reality and I would obviously accept. But it doesn't do that so how could I not sometimes remember.

[@twistedtachyon5877]

Retardosaurusrex thing is, while you may think that decision is obvious, I certainly don't. In fact, not only would I reject a memory-blocking experience machine, if I discovered my past self had made that decision already and I was in one, I would be deeply appalled and feel compelled to depart my hedonistic dream world. While incredibly tempting, once taken to the extreme a purely self-serving hedonism becomes incredibly difficult to rationalize and therefore accept. How can I leave someone else behind to sustain my illusory existence for me without guilt? Somebody has to keep the machine on. And what worth does my life have if it doesn't interact with any other conscious being? If the machine allows me to both affect others and know that I have (since otherwise I would not accept), it must allow someone else to ruin it for me, and have the experience machine fail to do what was promised. I would say a meaningful and a purely virtual life ate logically contradictory not because virtual experiences are less valuable, but because they are by definition created in a reality which must sustain them, and if I am not the anchor, someone else must be.

[@trekhopton]

Friends, family, legacy/real world impact, afterlife. These are what I would worry about if I were to step into the machine.

[@LaCavernadelFanboy]

The way I see it, being "real" has nothing to do with it. It's more about working for it. If you plug into the machine and everything is given to you forever it's less plesurable than if you had earned it on your own merits. It's just like a video game is less fun if you turn on god mode and breeze through it than if you struggle to finish it. You miss out on the sense of accomplishment.

[@RicardoReyesYa]

first

[@nexusomega8454]

i would climb in the machine without hesitation. you could experience all the fantasy worlds, the universe and its wonders. safe from harm. sounds great to me. also 16th, maybe or 7th. depends if you count responses

[@peardude8979]

Nexus Omega First, sorted by best.

[@IkameX]

Freud had an really interessting, while underappreciated theory about mood regulation. He said (and I totally support) that you cannot experience pleasure or happiness only. You need unpleasurable experiences to have and contrast and to be able to value (and therefor experience) the pleasure. It fits with todays understanding of neuro-chemistry also, where you have the enlargement of receptor-quantity as reaction on constant high amounts of neurotransmitters.

[@IkameX]

P.S.: That's why I live by: "Appreciate the mispleasure, for it shows you that you were happy and will be again." Also: Sorry for my horrible english.

[@nbonasoro]

wouldn't nozick be wrong about the experience machine. I would say net pleasure (good feelings less the negative feelings that hedonistic behavior creates) is important in this thought experiment. If I am in this experience machine these pleasures would be less pleasurable than authentic ones because people derive pleasure from earning their accomplishments and people find displeasure in giving up control if their life. So two identical surfing sessions would a priori be better in real life than in the experience machine because of our pleasure from working hard to earn that experience and the ability to control our lives. So one could be hedonistic while choosing to stay out of the machine. The truthfulness of an experience is a qualitative descriptor of the experience and thus impacts the total pleasure from the experience. surfing in real life and surfing in the experience machine are not the same experience and thus cannot be compared.

[@part-timepartytime9621]

Yes they can be compared! If the hard work towards a payoff is what gives you pleasure then the EM can just simulate you working hard to surf. The mind literally determines "reality", the EM just pulls the strings of your mind the same way the "real world" would. I would argue that if the truthfulness of an experience is what makes it enjoyable, then just have the EM make you forget you're in it! Honestly who's to say you're not already in an EM?

[@IkameX]

No GoT-spoiler warning?

[@reececrump8483]

where was this video when I was writing my papers on hedonism

[@gerrygooable]

A very important part of what makes me feel that I'm living a good life is knowing that I somehow am part of what makes the people close to me feel the same way towards their lives. My family, my partner, my true friends and the bonds we share. I could not step into the machine knowing that I'll be taking that away from them.

[@Barrettiful]

I think one thing that isn't mentioned here is in regards to the social aspect of our experiences. I think we get a lot of validation for our pleasures and experiences from our social environment, otherwise, our experiences would feel empty. One thing that always takes me out of a RPG, for example, ends up being the point where I learn all of the patterns of social interaction between NPCs. They start to feel fake when you notice the extent of their programming. I think that is the ultimate Turing test: if you can make NPCs actually seem real in a "virtual reality" and get social validation from the native NPCs (which would have to be indistinguishable from real humans), you've just created a true artificial intelligence, and who's to say that those experiences are not real?

[@BeHappyTo]

There is no good life.

[@OnlineCrypid]

I sat through the whole episode thinking about this point that you touched on at the end - that a "good life" is complied of more than pleasure. In my experience, pleasure that is earned is all the more pleasurable, like say checking youtube AFTER you did your homework, or working hard to get that trip to Japan. For pleasure to have a lasting impact it has to be longed for, and having desert before dinner might be fun once or twice, but doing it all the time will leave you with a feeling of cheating on yourself.

[@AspelShuyin]

Maybe it's my depression talking, but plug me in, baby. Also, how do we know we aren't already in the machine? A machine tuned to something other than pleasure, obviously, but we could all be brains-in-a-jar. Or, at the very least our own very boring Truman Show. We wouldn't know. So can we really say that the Experience Machine is any different from our real world? I think what stops people isn't that it would be a *true* experience, it's that they'd be stepping one level lower. If people are already in the Matrix, they might not want to leave, but most won't take up the offer to plug in because that world isn't *this* world.

[@leonawroth2516]

The question of "are we in the matrix" is pointless. Cause you have no way to prove either way. And secondly the Experience Machine would ofc be different. Cause YOU can programme it.

[@AspelShuyin]

Or someone else could program it and put you in it. My point was that if a good life is a true life, we have no way of knowing if our life is true as it is. Someone could have kidnapped you and stuck you in the experience machine while you were asleep.

[@gigglysamentz2021]

Good video still :)

[@davidwhetzel9538]

inside out can teach you alot about this, only through all emotions can we experience life as a whole. sadness can be a fond "joyful" memory even if it is rooted in sadness.

[@ZhangSchmidt]

"unexperienced benefits" might be a great intro/idea to explaining things like "white privilege" (and the pushback against it, á "But my life isn't really going that great, so where's me being privileged?")

[@NovaGN]

The thing that I would be worried about if the pleasurable experiences will eventually find its way to tedium. For instance, there are only so many nights that you can eat steak in a row before you say "Oh. More steak........Can I have spinach?" In addition, if the goal of the machine is to have the most pleasure possible, then I must go from one thing to another IMMEDIATELY without any downtime. This can cause over-stimulation and anxiety in and of itself. But I hear some say, "Then you value relaxation as well! Just program relaxation!" Yet if I did that, then I must have some static value of EACH experience I find pleasurable and plan accordingly. Ice cream may sound pleasurable the first and second time, but detestable the 40th. Where does that arbitrary line lie and how would I know when to drop a certain pleasurable activity to go to another one with more net pleasure? What I find pleasurable depends on my mood, the time of day, how energetic I feel, and a million other things. How can something program the maximum pleasurable experience for me if I myself do not know how to find maximum pleasure?

[@STNKbone]

NovaGN If this machine is able to manipulate your mind, it then could be possible for it to alter the rate at which you perceive novelty to wear off. You could eat a steak everyday for a hundred years, and it could feel just as satisfying as the first night.

[@vakusdrake3224]

Yeah but that's crossing into the whole other problem of wireheading

[@Prismatic_Rain]

Maybe the machine adapts to your changing desires over time. If you get tired of relaxing by the beach every day it can give you moments of thrill, if you get tired of everything being too easy, it can give you challenges to work for something, when you get tired of working for things it can give you time to relax again. A good pleasure machine has all that worked out and will always be giving you the experience that is most pleasurable at any time.

[@vakusdrake3224]

Ghost Yeah people seem to forget that you can't make any argument against the machine that has anything to do with mental states, because it can create any of those it wants.

[@ThePunkPatriot]

Question: If the Truman Show relatives act for 25 years to be Truman's relatives, what is the difference for them between actually being a mother, versus only pretending? Acting is still doing. And people act in contradiction to our true inner desires to be more polite and social all the time, so are any of those real experiences equally acted as the Truman Show family? I don't see a measurable difference.

[@ericpa06]

About what question... Yes. I would plug on the machine! Totally.

[@doctormo]

A good life is a life where your agency can effect the real world meaningfully. The problem with the experience machine not being real, isn't that the signals come from an intangible non-material world, but that they come from a machine who's properties are mutable beyond the rules within the experience. So long as there is a god in that machine, the machine is no longer reality and the agency we wish to express on it is muted by an agency other than our own which sits outside of that reality's rules. Should the machine contain no god to break the rules and it's rules being internally consistent (which includes it's function to end) then there is no difference between it and the real world and our good life may be lived within. (additionally, "the real world meaningfully" might be effecting other people, or it might be the ability to make a hut, those are different though)

[@falnica]

Let's do the experiment the other way around. Imagine a person who has lived their whole life in this simulated reality of only pleasure, one day they find out the truth and are offered to go to the real world, where they will suffer for the first time, would they choose that?, I don't think so

[@STNKbone]

Fernando Franco Félix Thats basically what happened with Buddha. He was raised as a prince in a lavish castle, than one day he left the castle walls and was appalled by the state of suffering and misery that peasants lived in, so he rejected all material wealth and went on a journey for meaning. Oh man, cyberpunk Buddha...

[@falnica]

You, I like you

[@mnaftw]

Alan Cummings in Cabaret is indeed the visual epitome of my idea of a "good life"

[@BillyBob-xo6fc]

Plug me in.

[@josegljr]

It's coming up It's coming up It's coming up It's coming up It's coming up It's coming up It's DARE

[@jonc8561]

56k views? This channel deserves so much more...Damn KZbin and their algorithm changes.

[@Cyphon]

2021 anyone?

[@AlexD988]

Watch Adam Curtis's new documentary 'Hypernormalisation'. It's on BBC iPlayer, this video reminded me of it.

[@TacticusPrime]

What if you value novelty? True unimaginable and thus unprogrammable novelty?

[@treyforest2466]

Does the 'E' in 'Chuck E. Cheese' really stand for 'Entertainment'? Wow, Chuck's parents were weird.