The Experience Machine Summary

David Sosa, author of The Spoils of Happiness, creates a new perspective to the “what is happiness?” conundrum. As we all pondered at the idea, I, for one never went into much depth. Sosa, intrigues us with a theoretical question based off a movie, The Matrix. Would you plug into an artificial intelligence that makes you think you are living a happy life? Well, after reading this article, Sosa himself would not. His thesis is: happiness is more like knowledge than a belief. In the following paragraphs I will discuss Sosa’s thesis and give my arguments.

Throughout history, pleasure has been the main goal that drives society. Pleasure can be described as an accomplishment or satisfaction of physical, intellectual, or spiritual desires. Hedonism, which is the view that sees pleasure as the only thing worth pursuing for its own sake, and that everything else is worth pursuing as long as it leads to pleasure. This view appears to be accurate since; everything that a person could ever want is for some thing to fulfill their desires. A philosopher named Robert Nozick came up with a scenario named “The Experience Machine”. In the future, a super duper machine created by neuropsychologists that was foolproof and could give an individual any experience they desired. Also the individual would never know that they were in the machine (pp. 32). Some people may choose to enter this machine, but there are others who do not. Nozick then argues that since there are people who do not enter the machine, there is something else worth pursuing for its own sake other than pleasure itself. Nozick puts up a strong case against Hedonism, and provides support for his reasons why people would choose not to plug into the machine.

Throughout life one has to make many decisions. Many of these decisions are based on morals. The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes the word moral as “relating to principles of right and wrong behavior.” I personally believe that the moral decisions one makes are highly dependent on their life, family, and their careers (or lack thereof).

As much as anyone would say otherwise self-interest does play a measure in and to some extent can interfere with decision-making. Whether that becomes moral decision-making would depend upon what and who defines that particular moral as right or wrong. As humans we have such a competitive nature built into our makeup it just seems so hard not to have some self-interest. If we look at such things as employment searches, promotions, salary increases any type of lateral employment moves; most people would like to know what’s in it for them. It has manifested itself more clearly as of recent in my opinion as we have navigated through the X Generation, Y Generation or the Millennials to what we have now, which I

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

I am a Moderate Prudential Objectivist, best of life is different for different people and what someone want from his life tends to be different. However, I also believe that there are times when my personal opinions are wrong and I need to follow subjective choices. I tend to follow subjective choices when I am not quite sure whether my opinions are good for me or not. Whenever I need to take crucial decisions about my career, I always consult subjective resources and choices. I always use to get insight and consultation from my professors, parents and friends. I do not want to get everything I want but, I surely want to get things that are good for me. For me the best life does not depend on materialistic things like money, fame etcetera. I agree with Sir William David Ross theory of Natural Law that highlights “Prime facie principles” i.e. “valid or moral rules of action that one can generally adhere to but, in case of moral conflict, mat be

Robert Nozick’s “The Experience Machine” poses the question: if you had the opportunity to be plugged into a machine that would simulate a life you had prechosen, would you plug in? Nozick describes being in the machine as a type of suicide and there are many reasons as to why this machine would be just that. For example, human beings are inherently creatures that learn by observation, therefore, if you have never observed or practiced what it is to be brave, loving, kind, or honest, you wouldn’t have the capacity in you to possess those traits.

Have you ever wished you could have anything you wanted in life? I know I have. I’ve always wanted a world where everything would be to my liking and nothing would be to my dissatisfaction. Nozick sets up a scenario where we can get a maximum amount of pleasure by plugging into an “experience machine” that allows us to undergo anything we wanted while we are in a tank with electrodes attached to our heads. One will be plugged in for two years at a time but while one is attached, the experiences are going to seem like they are actually happening. He takes this machine to disprove the hedonism view that says consciously experience pleasure is the most important thing to living a good life. In his opinion he would not plug in because while one is in the machine, one cannot do certain things, be a certain person or come in contact with reality. I had never really thought about the option of experiencing anything I wanted versus living a normal life before, but after reading The Experience Machine by Nozick, I would pick living in a normal life because even though experiencing anything I wanted would cause as much pleasure as possible, it limits one to things that are important to human life such as being able to physically perform or experience things and having an impact in society

In “The Experience Machine” written by Robert Nozick who was a philosophy professor at Harvard University. Robert Nozick argues against the hedonism of Bentham. There is a concept of a machine where you can plug it in and you can live the experience that you desire. The machine could stimulate your brain into thinking that it is reality and you can do anything you want, but in reality you are floating in a tank with electrodes attached to your brain. You can also program the machine to how long you want to be in it and if you want to get out and reprogram it to however long you want to stay in it. The question is that would you plug it in if there was nothing to worry about in the real world?

that any rational human being would have a problem with wanting to plug in and have

The moral rightness and wrongness of an action is determined by how much happiness it produces in total.

In the movie Matrix, people live in a virtual world composed of happiness -although delusional, and are not conscious of this fact. Their daily lives are carried on oblivious to the painful, decrepit, and depressing conditions of reality. There exist two different sides to this predicament. In a utilitarianist’s perspective, this condition is understandable because ultimately, overall happiness is higher compared to an otherwise situation. However, in a realist’s point of view, it would seem that anything achieved in a false world will always be false, therefore humans should achieve real things that matter.

The function of the machine is to stimulate our brains to make us think and feel if that we were actually experience what we desire. However, we are not actually doing it. It is just brain stimulation. In the experience

The experience model (group size) is how different levels as humans fit into the world around us, it

In the beginning of the semester, I considered happiness, and happiness alone, as the highest good. I believed that happiness was obtained by living a comfortable life filled with pleasure and love through experiencing the world and being able to give and receive affection and unconditional acceptance. Living comfortably meant being content with my living conditions. I also believed that pleasures should be obtained in healthy and legal ways. I also differentiated between immediate and long-term happiness. Being open to giving in to short-term happiness while always keeping your long-term happiness in mind was the best way to live a happy life. However, presently at the end of the course, my moral worldview has changed and developed.