User Controls
Experience Machine
-
2016-02-01 at 10:50 PM UTCImagine a machine that could give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences we could want. Imagine scientists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those he would have apart from the machine.
If given the choice, would you prefer the machine to real life?
-
2016-02-01 at 10:54 PM UTCMachine! Machine! Machine!
-
2016-02-01 at 11 PM UTCHow do you know you're not already in the machine?
-
2016-02-01 at 11:03 PM UTCI feel like this internet thing is an early beta version of the machine you're talking about and I already prefer it over real life.
Not really but when I'm honest it's probably true. I spend way too much time staring into a screen which ruins my eyes and fucks up my back but I accept those things in exchange for the sweet stimuli the machine provides so if we can ever get rid of the bad stuff I'm all in. -
2016-02-01 at 11:28 PM UTC
I feel like this internet thing is an early beta version of the machine you're talking about and I already prefer it over real life.
Not really but when I'm honest it's probably true.
Just wait until this becomes a thing and they use it to build a super intelligent AI. Or maybe it already happened and we are already in it.
-
2016-02-02 at 1:20 AM UTCFuck that bullshit hedonism. Id prefer to live a real life rather than literally live inside a hugbox thats designed for bitch ass pussies who cant handle real life.
-
2016-02-02 at 2:32 AM UTCSounds like what I always imagined Heaven to be like when I believed in Heaven- an endless experience of all the things you could ever dream of or hope for. You could just live whatever lifestyle you wanted to and have whatever scenario you wanted to play out - being a rockstar, pornstar, prom king, 100% approval president, pussy magnet, animal, fucking etc etc etc and feel and experience the pleasures and pride and joy and whatever else positive emotions result from said experience or life/lifestyle.
Machine me. -
2016-02-02 at 2:33 AM UTC
How do you know you're not already in the machine?
We don't, but if we're in the machine you suggested, the engineers fucking SUCK. -
2016-02-02 at 5:50 PM UTCWhat's the difference between the machine and "real" life? If the machine gives me the same, let's say, "level" of experience then why not go for it? I'm assuming it only generates the qualia though, so to speak, so I still have to eat and stuff, in which case it would be most healthy to use it as a way to augment "real" life, like anything else you enjoy doing. I just think it could be a very dangerous and addictive drug if not used properly.
-
2016-02-02 at 6:09 PM UTCWhat's the difference between people who would choose artificial reality and people who would choose reality?
On one hand we have people who would rather live in reality. If asked why they might tell us they want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them. Maybe they want to be a certain sort of person, not some indeterminate blob floating in a hugbox. They might claim that the machine limits us to a man-made reality, it limits us to what we can make, there is no actual contact with any deeper reality.
On the other hand we have people who would rather live in the artificial reality. They might claim that they are incapable of achieving the experiences they want in the real world. They might claim their dreams are beyond their reach in the real world, but in an artificial reality they can become anything they want. They might claim that reality limits their experiences, while an artificial reality increases their potential experiences.
Who is closer to the truth? Which position is better? -
2016-02-02 at 7:20 PM UTC
What's the difference between people who would choose artificial reality and people who would choose reality?
On one hand we have people who would rather live in reality. If asked why they might tell us they want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them. Maybe they want to be a certain sort of person, not some indeterminate blob floating in a hugbox. They might claim that the machine limits us to a man-made reality, it limits us to what we can make, there is no actual contact with any deeper reality.
On the other hand we have people who would rather live in the artificial reality. They might claim that they are incapable of achieving the experiences they want in the real world. They might claim their dreams are beyond their reach in the real world, but in an artificial reality they can become anything they want. They might claim that reality limits their experiences, while an artificial reality increases their potential experiences.
Who is closer to the truth? Which position is better?
The distinction you are trying to make is imaginary. Descartes addressed this hundreds of years ago; There is only one fundamental, unitary fact in the universe that you can be sure of; that you are thinking. Everything else than you can experience and reason around is no more objective or real than anything else. If ultimately the qualitative content that reaches your brain is the same, then there is no functional difference in the means by which it is delivered.
What you're saying is something akin to "you are not eating real bread because you didn't find the plant in the wild, culture it, grind the grain up by hand and bake it yourself." But my brain tastes bread, my body absorbs its nutrition, my hunger is satiated all the same. -
2016-02-02 at 7:31 PM UTC
The distinction you are trying to make is imaginary.
Then why do people choose one option over the other?
2/3 voters in this poll chose a simulation over reality. 1/3 chose reality. If there is no distinction between reality and simulation, why did these people make the choices they made? -
2016-02-02 at 8:42 PM UTC
Then why do people choose one option over the other?
2/3 voters in this poll chose a simulation over reality. 1/3 chose reality. If there is no distinction between reality and simulation, why did these people make the choices they made?
Because if the end result is still bread, would you rather have to make brread from scratch or just go out to the store and buy it? -
2016-02-02 at 8:57 PM UTCThat's one distinction.
Now, which option would you choose?
And, in your opinion, what is the difference between people who would choose artificial reality and people who would choose reality? -
2016-02-02 at 9:13 PM UTCI voted for the machine. And there is no difference except that one group is held back by some notion of reality that they've made up.
-
2016-02-03 at 5:56 PM UTCOf course there is a difference, you made an example of it yourself here: "… would you rather have to make brread from scratch or just go out to the store and buy it?"
Why did you pick the machine over reality? I don't want to speak for you, I don't know what your reason was because you didn't state one, but based on your bread metaphor I'm assuming you chose the machine because you're the sort of person who would rather go to the store to buy bread. In the machine you could enjoy whatever pleasures you wish without putting the actual work usually required to achieve them. That's a pretty large and obvious difference between the experience machine and reality.
Now I don't know if I can agree with you that people who would choose reality over the machine are being "held back" by their notion of what reality is. I don't know why some people would prefer reality over simulation, or to use your metaphor why they would prefer to bake their own bread, but I'm assuming that they enjoy putting in the effort. I don't know, maybe it makes them feel more human or something. I mean, there is this saying that "you are what you do," and there could be an argument made here that if you no longer are doing human things but are instead just some incomprehensible simulation of pure joy and pleasure, you're no longer really a human being. I suppose you would respond by saying something like "Well the people who think that are just being 'held back' by some made up notion of what a human is," and maybe you're right about that, maybe the whole concept of "being human" is just imagination, but is it really right to say they are being "held back" as if their notions are some sort of a weakness? Couldn't it just as easily be argued that you are being held back by some notion of "being held back" you've made up?
-
2016-02-03 at 6:13 PM UTC
The distinction you are trying to make is imaginary. Descartes addressed this hundreds of years ago; There is only one fundamental, unitary fact in the universe that you can be sure of; that you are thinking.
That wasn't Descartes' position (he actually thought we could know a lot of things deductively, existence of cogito was just the first) and it's a far cry from an indisputable fact. See Kant for an example of someone who thought (and many metaphysicist still hold the position that) we can have certain knowledge about the world beyond existence from mere experience. -
2016-02-03 at 9:52 PM UTC
That wasn't Descartes' position (he actually thought we could know a lot of things deductively, existence of cogito was just the first) and it's a far cry from an indisputable fact. See Kant for an example of someone who thought (and many metaphysicist still hold the position that) we can have certain knowledge about the world beyond existence from mere experience.
You're right. I was simplifying for, well, the sake of simplicity. A more accurate way to say it would be that all knowledge is based upon cogito ergo sum. However, I don't know what you're talking about it not being undisputed; there is no philosophical argument, at least that I am aware of, that disputes Descartes' assertion that it is the one core fact from which we can derive knowledge. You'll have to be more specific with what you believe Kant said on the subject.
-
2016-02-03 at 9:53 PM UTC
Of course there is a difference, you made an example of it yourself here: "… would you rather have to make brread from scratch or just go out to the store and buy it?"
As I said, the outcome is identical, not how we arrived at it. I don't care how the outcome comes around so long as I get the desired result, and I'm not harming anyone else.
Why did you pick the machine over reality? I don't want to speak for you, I don't know what your reason was because you didn't state one, but based on your bread metaphor I'm assuming you chose the machine because you're the sort of person who would rather go to the store to buy bread. In the machine you could enjoy whatever pleasures you wish without putting the actual work usually required to achieve them. That's a pretty large and obvious difference between the experience machine and reality.
Now I don't know if I can agree with you that people who would choose reality over the machine are being "held back" by their notion of what reality is. I don't know why some people would prefer reality over simulation, or to use your metaphor why they would prefer to bake their own bread, but I'm assuming that they enjoy putting in the effort. I don't know, maybe it makes them feel more human or something. I mean, there is this saying that "you are what you do," and there could be an argument made here that if you no longer are doing human things but are instead just some incomprehensible simulation of pure joy and pleasure, you're no longer really a human being. I suppose you would respond by saying something like "Well the people who think that are just being 'held back' by some made up notion of what a human is," and maybe you're right about that, maybe the whole concept of "being human" is just imagination, but is it really right to say they are being "held back" as if their notions are some sort of a weakness? Couldn't it just as easily be argued that you are being held back by some notion of "being held back" you've made up? -
2016-02-03 at 11:27 PM UTC
I don't care how the outcome comes around so long as I get the desired result
If they have the same outcome and you don't care how you arrive at it, then why did you choose the simulation over reality?
