Robert Nozick's Experience Machine

People see, feel and experience things in a different way to each other, but by exploring and describing experiences, we can gain valid knowledge and understanding. The aim is to depict the nature of quality of personal experiences.

When having good experiences, most people, if asked, would claim that they feel happy. However, if one decided to ask Martha Nussbaum, author of “Who is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” she would most likely respond that she was feeling pleasured. In her article, she draws a restrictive line between pleasure and happiness. She introduces the viewpoints of many intellectuals who have spoken on the definition of happiness, and then offers her own opinions in regards to theirs. Her thoughts generally align with those of Aristotle, Plato, and the ancient Greek thinkers – the very ones she spent much of her higher education studying. Her main ideas, that happiness is too complex to be concretely defined and that pleasure is a feeling that we may experience while doing certain things, are well-explained and supported. She offers the idea that happiness is not an emotion – rather, it is a state of being that we should all hope to attain as a result of self-reflection. Nussbaum continually counters the beliefs proposed by psychologists, like the notion that happiness is a one-note feeling, or the concept that happiness is only influenced by positive emotions. In my essay, I will explain how Martha Nussbaum’s explanation of the complexities of happiness is superior, as well as how the ideas of two psychologists, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Daniel Gilbert, are faulty and disreputable. However, it is important to note that just because Nussbaum is the least wrong

'The experience machine' is one of Nozick’s best-known arguments . The experience machine is a thought experiment which posits the existence of a device that can give its user any experience desired. When one placed in an 'experience machine', it can program any experience, such as traveling to the moon. The experience machine is supposed to allow someone to have all and any of the pleasures in the world. However, Nozick states that even though if such machine exits no one would use it, which shows that there are more important things than pleasure.

Zadie Smith explains to you that pleasure can be more of a temporary feeling that can only satisfy readers at that moment or for a little bit of time. Reading this short story by Smith makes the readers realize that there is a difference between two words that can also be so similar but so different at the same time. And that joy can sometimes be similar to pleasure but it’s more than a feeling. You enjoy “joy” and you live during

Nozick suggests, “why should we be concerned only with how our time is filled, but not with what we are?” The truth is humans are not only concerned with what they do in life, but also with whom they become and are. The human personality develops by experiencing true and real events that are not resulted from a man made machine. We as humans have the ability to reason and understand life differently than everything else in existence. Because of this understanding of life, we understand that pleasure is not the only important thing to us. As human we have real life goals which need to be experienced through reality, not through some stimulation of our brain. Nozick makes it clear the pleasure is not intrinsically good because by denying this thought experiment, we are also denying that all we need is pleasure to live a good life.

In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).

In addition, Kupperman evaluates the value of pleasure through the Buddhist Argument as well as Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow” argument. Although it may seem that since we want more pleasure in life, that value of pleasure may depend on how much

Nozick first discusses the fact that happiness is not all that matters. “Even if happiness were the only thing we cared about, we would not care solely about its total amount… we would care also how the happiness is distributed over a lifetime.” (Nozick 179). If the quantitative amount of happiness was the only important thing, people would be indifferent to a life of constantly decreasing happiness and a constantly increasing life of happiness. The experience machine would give an individual a life of maximal desired pleasure, it would

The rhetorical factors in the article “Buying Experiences, Not Things” written by James Hamblin are clear and easy to decipher. The article discusses the psychological factors in a human of being happy. Psychologists and scientists are constantly doing research and studies trying to determine how the brain works, and how people’s minds function every day of their lives. Whether its sleep, knowledge, substance abuse or functions of each part of the brain, every little piece of information gathered helps complete the bigger picture. Emotions are a popular study in psychology. Psychologists are trying to find a way to measure the emotions of people that occur on a daily basis. Research is also being done in search of a form of measurement to measure people’s happiness. Happiness is considered to be an important factor in life.

In today’s world, it is oft believed that “happiness is the key to life,” in other words, when one achieves happiness, life is supremely fulfilling, satisfying, and could not be improved by any measurable means. I disagree with this proposition, alongside modern philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this essay I will argue, utilizing theories from Kant and Mill and incorporating my own ideas in support, that virtue is the ultimate key to living a fulfilling life. In support of my position, I will cite theories from both Kant and Mill, as well as related concepts from other philosophers, including the “experience machine.”

In addition, both touch on the topic of absolute happiness and its connection to existentialism, both sharing a somewhat grim look on the subject matter. First of all, absolute happiness “implies total and all consuming happiness. You are nothing but happy all the time, and as such have no understanding of other counter feelings.”[1],

He would argue that we do not just want to feel a certain way, but also be a certain way. He illustrates this by using the example of the experience machine. He wants us to think of the experience machine as a big tank that we are in essence floating around in. While in this tank we can “reprogram” any and all of our experiences, no matter what they are. For example, you could program the machine to change your job or change your set of values. You could even program the machine to seem real to your own life, but change all of the “lows” to “highs” and all of the negative aspects to positives- this way, from the inside you feel as good as is possible. Upon entering the machine, your life would be filled with happiness and you would feel as tremendously great. If you would choose not to enter, you would of course have to focus on reality and care more than about how things feel to you on the inside. Nozick argues that this idea would be nice, but for some reason, most people are so concerned with reality and all that it entails that they would not choose to have only feelings. Human beings want to experience happiness, and we desire for most if not all of the happiness to come from our real life

In our discussions on relativism, the idea of a Happiness Machine had come up from an excerpt of the Pojman readings. His version of the Happiness Machine proposes that any person can fulfill all of their aspirations and desires by programming their destiny into the machine. The only caveat of the machine is the person who enters the machine must exit it at a certain point in time. Many people in-class, including myself, stated they would not enter this machine, as it would effectively break the illusion of the world inside the Happiness Machine. However, the idea of an updated Happiness Machine arose where one would no longer be forced to leave the happiness machine. Even with the new and improved happiness machine, I choose not to enter it because by permanently leaving this world, I deprive myself from the satisfaction of truth.

Pain can be a stimuli where physical and psychological intimidation manipulate and shape favorable social norms such as in George Orwell’s novel 1984. Fear can be an emotion that is based on pain and the presumption of what pain may be like to the person who is anticipating it. To some, this may be an enigma caused by nerve and nothing more in terms of psychological response, and to others, it may involve physical reactions with repeated hurtful types of conditionings. It is unlikely that a person wants to avoid pleasure. Most people are excited from anticipating the arrival of it. In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, when babies are exposed to objects that are considered pleasurable and they experience no pain from it, their physical responses involve “little squeals of excitement, gurgles and twitterings of pleasure” (Huxley 20). Fear and pain in the world of 1984 is worse than pleasure in the dystopia Brave New World in regards to behavioral conditioning because of the technology that impacts morals concerning sex.

In Book VII, Aristotle had many disagreements with socialists and philosophers about pleasure being a negative aspect in human lives. In Book VII, Aristotle states that pleasure may not be a process but an impeded activity of the natural state. This argument is not strong, Aristotle does not fully explain on the natural state. Aristotle also states that what is pleasurable to a human it may be opposite to another human. According to Aristotle, not all pleasures can be chosen, he states that pleasure competes with another sort of pleasure and a greater pleasure is chosen to receive its joy. Aristotle statement is that pleasure may be positive, but sometimes pleasure is not worth choosing if it interferes with daily activities that are excessively superior. Aristotle also examines that some pleasures are bad without qualifications. For an example, you’re hurt by falling down, and by recovering you’re getting pleasure at the same time because the pain is disappearing. This kind of pleasure is not chosen by someone, this pleasure happens by accident. According to his statement, pleasure is a worthy in undesirable conditions.