Previously, I have explained what Nozick’s thought experiment on experience machines is about and his arguments against plugging in. If you have not watched it, please find the link, watch it first and then return here. To recap, his three arguments are and I quote:
1) “We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.”
2) “We want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person.”
3) “Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality.”
While they may seem reasonable, I have hinted at some scenarios such as wanting a holiday or to escape from a life of suffering, to be reasons why people might want to plug into the experience machine. I want to expand on that today, to argue against Nozick’s arguments and then reconcile it with what I think is the real takeaway from his thought experiment.
Argument 1: “We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.”
If it is within our possibilities to do what we desire, then indeed Nozick’s argument seems reasonable, because we want to really do it and in that way also enjoy the experience of doing it. However, what if it is not within our possibilities?
1) What if we lacked the talent and ability, in our dream of say, becoming a world-class athlete or concert pianist though we might enjoy running or music as a hobby?
2) How about a case of disability, where we may have irreparably lost our sight and our desire is to see beauty again?
3) What if it is in the realm of the impossible? For e.g. to live in the fantasy world of Lord of the Rings or to fly on our own power or to time travel or to enjoy once more the company of our deceased loved ones?
4) What if we are in a situation of great pain, such as being continuously tortured in a concentration camp or in jail or suffer some painful incurable terminal disease?
5) On a lighter note, what if we simply want a holiday, a momentary escape from our mundane reality?
6) What if we are just lazy and instead of going through all the hard work and suffering needed to achieve our dreams, we take the easier path of the experience machine? After all, in the machine, we are guaranteed success compared to reality where even after all the hard work, we might fail.
For the first five scenarios, wouldn’t it be nice to experience it in lieu of being actually able to do it? So I think Nozick has overstated his case with arguing that we won’t want to plug into the machine because we want to actually do it and not merely experience it. Instead, whether and how we decide lies on a spectrum. If there is no possibility at all of achieving it, we might settle for ‘second best’ and instead indulge in the fantasy in an all-immersive experience machine. If our reality is really terrible, like in the concentration camp scenario or in interminable continuous acute pain, then yes, some might choose to opt to be instead in the dream-world of the experience machine since the alternative which is reality or euthanasia is worse.
The danger of such a machine lies in the last scenario, where we might be able to fulfil our dreams in real life but instead cop-out and just decide to plug in. We might enjoy it so much in the machine that we give up on trying to do it in real life. OR we might be spurred on by the experience within the machine to really try to do it in real life.
It really depends just how important or valuable fulfilling the dream is in reality, isn’t it? If say we are medical scientists and our desire is to find a cure for a terminal disease to cure our loved ones who are afflicted with it, then we might not just want to fantasise about it but we really want to find it. If the desire is for a beach vacation on a paradise island, then we might just settle for the experience machine since the aim is to have a good time, whichever way we can find it. In our current state of technology, we might watch a movie or read a book that provides a fantasy that gives us a good time. We don’t object to that so long as we don’t overindulge right? So the devil as usual is in the details of what it is that we want.
Another thing is that it really depends on the kind of people we are. I hinted at laziness in my last scenario but we could replace that with pessimism or fear of pain etc. Which brings us to Nozick’s second argument.
Argument 2: “We want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person.”
Nozick says that “someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob. There is no answer to the question of what a person is like who has long been in the tank. Is he courageous, kind, intelligent, witty, loving? It’s not merely that it’s difficult to tell; there’s no way he is.”
Nozick is saying two things here. He starts off calling the person who chose to plug in, indeterminate. Say the person’s fantasy is to be a war hero or some knight of the realm who is courageous and brave. Presuming that there are just wars to fight and brave deeds to be done, instead of fighting those wars or doing brave deeds, this person is just “floating in a tank.” So by choosing to be in such a state rather than doing those courageous brave deeds, this person obviously is not courageous and brave.
Nozick however is assuming that we can be or become a “courageous, kind, intelligent, witty, loving” person. In some ways and in some of these characteristics, I think he is right. For e.g. we might be able to be more kind. I am not sure if we can be more intelligent, intelligence may be innate though we can certainly become more knowledgeable by learning more or reading more.
But what if one happens to live in peaceful times and there is no just war to fight to demonstrate one’s courage? Should one plug into the experience machine then? Supporters of Nozick’s position might argue that there would be many occasions where we would find our courage tested even in an ordinary calm and peaceful life and courage can be exhibited in many forms, for e.g. fighting injustice instead of fighting wars. I sympathise with this second argument of Nozick’s. Certainly we might enjoy some nice experiences in the machine but it would be as character-building as reading about a noble and virtuous character in a book or seeing one on screen would be. That is, it might inspire us, it might challenge us to be better or it might not. Once again, it depends on the kind of person we are and want to be.
Argument 3: “Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality, to a world no deeper or more important than that which people can construct.”
Whatever experience one can experience in the machine is limited by the imagination of the author of the experience. The one creating the experience is either oneself if they author the experience they are going to have in the machine or it is another person, like a writer for machine experiences. Whatever story is created necessarily is limited since no one can possibly envision every single possibility and hence might not be able to devise the most pleasant possible experience.
For e.g. one might wish to experience being a rich person. Say seeing a butterfly by chance one day might make that experience even more pleasurable but that might be missed by the writer of the experience. However, the more important objection here is that say one desires to be a rich person and plugs into the machine to have such an experience. But because that experience is necessarily limited, perhaps in reality, that person could have been rich and also a hero. So the concern is that a person living in a machine might miss out on something even better.
Conversely though, that person might miss out on worse things. Say the fantasy was to be rich. Maybe in real life, that person can become rich but also experience the suffering of losing one’s loved ones or one’s soul. Reality can surprise us, in both pleasant and unpleasant ways.
Challenge
Having examined Nozick’s three arguments, some of you might think that I am pro-machine. Others might get the opposite feeling. However to me, the value of the experience machine thought experiment is that it is really a challenge posing as a thought experiment.
There is no experience machine in reality. Or is there? Perhaps our lives are an experience machine but with limitations. There are some dreams you can achieve so long as they don’t fall into the realm of the impossible. You might personally have other limitations also, for e.g. you may have physical or mental disabilities. Or you might be impeded because you are in jail for life etc.
For the majority of people, they do not have these limitations. And even for those with disabilities, there remain still many possibilities for happiness. If your dream is to win the Nobel Prize or be an Olympic athlete, then well, go do that. Go get the education, the training and put in the effort and work, and maybe you’d get there. Or maybe not. Maybe you’d fail. But failure too is an experience which can then help you in your next attempt. Finally you might fall short but if you aim high, maybe you’d still be in a good place.
Presumably for those wanting to plug in, the experiences you chose are ones that are hard to achieve. If they were easy, you’d already just have done them directly and not be wanting to go into an experience machine to have it. Even in the machine, part of the desired experience possibly would involve suffering since part of the sweetness of victory is the overcoming of difficulties and setbacks. Life is an experience machine, albeit an imperfect one with limitations. But it is all we have. So the challenge of the experience machine thought experiment is this: go figure out what experience you want, and then go and try to get it, for real. You don’t need to engage in wishful thinking, hoping for an experience machine. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment