Robert Nozick's Experiment, The Experience Machine and the Inclusion of Meta-Pleasure

A machine determines what people will buy, how they will act or look and even date which could cause people to suffer from boredom and go tired of the same stuff as always. In the previous, society is controlled by a machine that surrounds their mind with the aspects they most like. When Tilly says “You are scheduled to attend the kickoff meeting for the Davis case at eleven, which means you’ll get a lunch paid for by the firm. I suggest you go light on the breakfast, maybe just a banana.” (Ken Liu, 1), When Tilly suggests Sai what to eat, reveals people possess a lack of thought, which produces people to become ignorant by being told how to act, they stop thinking how they live their lives. Society trust in what their phones tell them is best for them and what will make them happy, they believe and let themselves manipulate by artificial intelligence to feel they are making sure they are going to become happy with the decisions they make. The idea of people controlled by technology leads to depression after some time, because makes people feel alone. In Harrison Bergeron society tells the people how they have to look, when the author mentions And to offset his good looks, the H-G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, “keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snuggle-tooth random.”(Kurt Vonnegut) the previous reinforces the idea of a society manipulated and limited to look certain way, what the author says leads to loneliness because people can’t be themselves. People also have a lack of thought because they can’t have their own decisions which produces them to depend on

In this essay I shall discuss how the film, 'The Matrix' (1999), engages in a form of cinematic philosophy. Specifically, I will discuss how the film can be seen as making an objection to the position held by Sidgwick (1907), who asserts that, positive states of consciousness, or, pleasure, is ultimately the only thing inherently valuable, which in turn becomes the basis of his utilitarian ethics. In doing so, I consider The Matrix to be a cinematic adaptation of Robert Nozick's (1974) 'experience machine' thought experiment, which the film-makers bring to life, developing it into a narrative that pulls heavily on our moral emotions. However, although the film-makers skilfully elicit the appropriate emotional responses from viewers, ensuring

Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.

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

As humans we are constantly in search of understanding the balance between what feels good and what is right. Humans try to take full advantage of experiencing pleasure to its fullest potential. Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest and only source of essential significance. If the notion of hedonism is truthful, happiness is directly correlated with pleasure. Robert Nozick presented the philosophical world with his though experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the existence and validity of hedonism. Nozick’s thought experiment poses the question of whether or not humans would plug into a machine which produces any desired experience. Nozick weakens the notion of hedonism through his thought experiment, claiming

Hume denies F that states: “Experiences of painful art are experiences that cause pain, not pleasure.” Hume in this case, therefore accepts normative hedonism which is described in the following declaration:

Nagel provides a complete a thorough argument against the hedonist position by explaining that one can be harmed without suffering, one can suffer post-mortem, and it is not the bad nor the good momentary conscious experiences that judge our lives but our projects, goals, ambitions, history, and possibility.

Hedonism and the desire-satisfaction theory of welfare are typically seen as archrivals in the contest over identifying what makes one’s life better. It is surprising, then, that the most plausible form of hedonism is desire satisfactionism. The hedonism theory focuses on pleasure/happiness while the desire-satisfaction theory elucidates the relevance of fulfilling our desires. Pleasure, in some points of view is the subjective satisfaction of desire. I will explain the similarities and the differences between the desire-satisfaction theory of value and hedonism. I will also discuss the most successful theory and defend my argument by explaining how the theory

Happiness even if identified with pleasure , is analyzed in terms of very little hedonistic Mill distinguishes between higher pleasures and lower pleasures and so introducted a qualitative distinction

Nozick’s Experience Machine thought experience is supposed to demonstrate utilitarianism thinking of ethical hedonism. Nozick believes that pleasure is good and any component such as pain does not increase personal well-being. The Experience Machine gives a person any experience they want functioning as a tank where scientists stimulate your brain to believe that your experience is actually happen. The Experience Machine lasts for two years in which the person then decides to choose the next round of experiences for the next two years. The Experience Machine is a perfect illusion within the human mind. My strongest objection is that the Experience Machine is flawed in the sense that good and bad experiences equally influence a person's morality

'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.

In his article, John Stuart Mill defends the idea that people should pursue pleasure because it is the only thing that they will ever desire and, therefore, the only thing that will make them happy. Mill measures the value of pleasure by looking at the majority’s’ opinion who have experienced both types of pleasures in question. Mill believes that the higher level of pleasure would bring the most satisfaction. He makes the argument that “no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool”. Therefore, Mill assumes that no one would want to go down into a lower class, because humans possess a sense of pride and dignity. What makes a person happy can be measured by the satisfaction they feel brought by the thing they desire.

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

The usefulness of his calculus, and the way Bentham defined pleasure came into question from one of his students, J.S. Mill who found his approach too general and simplistic. Mill rejected Bentham’s idea that all pleasures are the same and can be compared, he felt that there were different types or ‘levels’ of pleasure, and that some are more desirable or valuable than others. He decided that some pleasures or more desirable and meaningful than others, that there are

In this essay, following a brief discussion on Nozick’s “Experience Machine”, I argue that his assumption that nobody would plug into the experience machine is a false one due to his failure to fully explore what creates a pleasurable experience. I will then further discuss this idea of pleasure, suggesting that it is possible that the experience machine could potentially offer an experience that people would be more inclined to participate in and that more fully imitates reality. However, I will counter this with the Nozick's affirmation that people desire to connect with reality and mimicry of reality does not allow a part in the course of our universe.