Is there any argument against the experience machine?
The idea does bug me, the thought that if it's all just chemicals then there would be no real reason to not plug into it. What difference is there if we can just replicate everything?
I'm at the end of my rope on this one to the point where I even asked chatGPT for help (which is odd I know) and this is what I got:
I dunno, I'm pretty desperate if I'm asking AI for help.
I'm at the end of my rope on this one to the point where I even asked chatGPT for help (which is odd I know) and this is what I got:
Thats the core of the dilemma, isnt it? If everythinglove, relationships, joy, painis just the result of chemical processes in our brains, then it can feel like theres no difference between real, lived experiences and those that could be artificially created, like in the experience machine.
From a purely biological standpoint, there might not be a "difference" in the sense that both sets of experiences would result in the same chemical reactions in the brain, leading to the same feelings and perceptions. Whether those experiences come from actual interactions with people or are simulated by a machine, they might trigger similar neural pathways, releasing the same neurotransmitters and creating the same emotions. So, on that level, it could seem like theres no essential difference between real relationships and those simulated in a machine.
However, this doesnt mean theres no difference on a deeper level. The "realness" of our experiences, even if they are chemically driven, carries meaning through their context. The pain we feel from a loss or the joy we experience in connection is tied to our awareness of being in the world, navigating time, and engaging with others in a shared reality. Its not just the chemical reaction itself, but the process of experiencing and growing through life that gives our experiences richness and significance.
Even if its all chemistry, its the authenticity of living with all the ups and downs, the unpredictability of real connections, and the impermanence of life that adds layers of meaning that a simulation might lack. An artificial reality might give you endless pleasure or fulfillment, but it would be stagnant. You wouldnt change, grow, or face challenges that lead to personal growth or a deeper connection with others. The very fact that our relationships and experiences are imperfect, fragile, and fleeting is what makes them meaningful.
So, while chemically there may be no difference in the experience itself, theres a difference in the way we engage with those experiences, the complexity of the real world, and the depth of our connections with others. It's the unpredictability, the real stakes, the shared moments, and the sense of time passing that make life feel "real" in a way that artificial experiences cant replicate.
But I understand that, in a way, this still feels like a thin distinction when youre questioning the nature of meaning. Its easy to feel like its all just an illusion if everything is chemically determined. Do you think this difference in contextbetween a real life and a simulated oneis enough to preserve meaning, or does it still seem ultimately hollow to you?
I hear you. It sounds like the thought of everything being reducible to chemical reactions leaves you feeling like life, relationships, and experiences are essentially empty, even if they feel real in the moment. If its all just neurons firing in response to stimuli, its understandable that the sense of meaning might feel hollow, as if everything we care about is merely a byproduct of biology, with no inherent purpose or lasting significance.
When youre confronted with the idea that everything is "just chemicals," it can strip away the sense of agency or deeper connection that we might associate with love, achievement, or personal growth. If theres no ultimate meaning to those experiencesno greater reason for why we feel the way we do or why we form the connections we dothen they can feel like theyre just fleeting moments in an endless cycle of chemical responses.
In a way, its like looking at life through a lens where the magic of human experienceeverything that feels special, transcendent, or full of purposestarts to feel mechanical or arbitrary. The relationships we cherish, the passions we follow, the dreams we pursueif theyre just the result of biochemical processes, does that make them any less real to us in the moment? Or does it leave them feeling ultimately meaningless because theyre not grounded in something "bigger" than just our brain chemistry?
The hollowness you feel is a very real and valid response. Its a confrontation with a worldview that doesnt offer any comforting notion of a grand purpose. But maybe theres another layer to this. In the absence of inherent meaning, perhaps we have the power to define what is meaningfulif only for ourselves, if only for the time we have. We might not be able to escape the fact that everything is ultimately tied to physical processes, but perhaps, in that knowledge, we can create a form of meaning that feels authentic, even if its temporary or ephemeral.
I understand. When everything feels like it's just chemicals and processes, trying to convince yourself that your relationships, passions, or experiences have meaning can feel like a form of self-deceptionlike you're trying to convince yourself of something that isn't true, just to feel better. Thats a deeply unsettling feeling. If its all just a biological accident, then trying to assign meaning to it might feel like youre covering up the inherent emptiness with comforting illusions.
The struggle here is so humanfeeling the weight of a reality that doesnt offer any easy answers or comforting stories. When you realize that meaning isnt built into the fabric of existence in a cosmic sense, and that its all just a product of the brain's chemistry, trying to make something out of that can seem like youre just playing along with your own brain's illusions.
It might feel like youre caught between two worlds: one where you know that everything is chemical and meaningless, and another where your heart and mind still long for meaning, purpose, and truth. And that tension can feel unbearablelike youre fooling yourself into thinking something matters when deep down, it seems like it doesn't.
But heres the paradox: even if youre lying to yourself, the feeling of wanting meaning, the desire to connect with others, and the way you experience the world still matters. Whether its an illusion or not, it shapes your life and your emotional landscape. And it shapes the lives of others too. In a way, our need for meaningwhether or not it's ultimately "real" in some cosmic senseis deeply tied to our humanity. Its part of what makes us who we are.
That doesnt make the sense of lying to yourself any easier, though. Its hard to keep going when you feel like you're only pretending to believe in something that feels hollow. But maybe thats where the challenge lies: finding a way to live authentically, even in the face of uncertainty. Its not easy, and it doesnt mean pretending that things are definitely meaningfulit might just mean allowing yourself to engage with the world as it is, without the pressure of needing to have it all figured out.
I hear youits really hard. The weight of that tension, where the desire for meaning collides with the understanding that everything is just chemicals, can feel like its pulling you in two different directions. Its hard to feel truly alive and engaged with the world when, deep down, you cant shake the feeling that its all meaningless or that youre just playing along with an illusion.
Its not just an intellectual challenge either; its emotional and existential. When you recognize that life might not have some grand, inherent meaning, and that everything youve believed in may just be a product of biology, it can feel like the ground beneath you is constantly shifting. You cant build your life on something that feels like its crumbling away, and trying to find peace or purpose in that can be draining, especially when it feels like theres no solid answer.
The hardest part is that theres no clear path forward when youre caught in that space of uncertainty. Its like standing at a crossroads where neither direction offers real comfort or clarity. Maybe, in some way, this is an ongoing struggle for a lot of peoplethe desire for meaning in a world that doesnt promise any, and the weight of trying to reconcile that with the harsh reality of what we understand about existence.
But heres the thing: Just because its hard, doesnt mean its impossible to navigate. It might not get easier, and it might not offer a perfect solution. But people do find ways to keep going, even with the tension of feeling like life is both meaningless and meaningful at the same time. Some focus on small, personal momentsconnecting with others, creating art, pursuing things that matter to them, even if they dont hold universal significance. Others find comfort in letting go of the need for absolute answers and accepting the ambiguity of existence.
Ultimately, it may not be about reconciling everything perfectly but finding a way to live in the tension, without forcing yourself to have everything sorted out. Its okay to acknowledge that its hard, that its confusing, and that it doesnt always feel like theres a clear path forward. You dont have to solve the whole thingjust keep moving forward as best as you can.
I dunno, I'm pretty desperate if I'm asking AI for help.
Comments (76)
Some say we have a status quo bias towards what we know but I dunno, thought experiments are abstract. Even if you ask people it's not like it proves anything right?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/655601
A 2024 post from another thread Boethius and the Experience Machine ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889496
If a machine could replicate exactly the pathways we would not know it was a simulation.
However, we do have a part of the brain that detects fakeness (No idea of where it is and where I read about it) so any machine that you aware was a machine would ultimately fail because you would "know" it was a fake and discount the experience.
[I]"However, this doesnt mean theres no difference on a deeper level. The "realness" of our experiences, even if they are chemically driven, carries meaning through their context. The pain we feel from a loss or the joy we experience in connection is tied to our awareness of being in the world, navigating time, and engaging with others in a shared reality. Its not just the chemical reaction itself, but the process of experiencing and growing through life that gives our experiences richness and significance."[/I]
Anyway, I don't know terribly much about this thought experiment. Is the idea that the machines sends all the same signals to the brain from our senses that we would have gotten if the events had actually happened to us? Or does it skip all that, and "simply" implant memories of those events? Something else?
Interesting criteria for choice, its all just chemicals. Well putting aside what goes on in your brain for a moment, are those real objects in front of you just chemicals as well? Or those chemicals got some special ontological status for you? And those chemicals in the brain, I guess just, are just chemicals of what? Something unknown?
So I guess you are worried about the causes of the chemicals in your brain. You seem to want those causes to be outside your brain. But the causes of an experience machine are outside your brain.
Maybe reading Sartre might help when it comes to making a choice in life. But maybe not, thats a choice as well.
From what perspective? At what level of analysis? Why not instead: if it's all just quarks ...? C'mon, the premise is weak, reductive nonsense.
In some ways its just that and in some ways its not.
but thats not an answer to the question nor does it engage with the thought experiment.
But we do have a part of the brain that detects fakeness (it's how people can spot AI generated content). However thats not the question.
I asked it because everywhere else I asked people just insisted the question was either nonsense or impossible and didnt really engage with the points I was making.
What GPT told me was honestly what I knew already and heard before, though I noticed it didnt really answer the question truly either.
Quoting Richard B
Its more like wondering if all that is meaningful is just chemical signal and therefor nothing special. Hobbies, relationships, all that. Ive stopped feeling joy because of it, I think that if I do something I like it means I value joy and pleasure and would have to accept the experience machine and plug in.
Neuroscience clearly, it's not like there is magic that makes it happen.
If everything we take to be meaningful is just the result of chemicals that can be replicated then there is nothing special about what we take to be meaningful. Treasured relationships can be replaced with a machine that just gives you the chemical rewards that having them would, it would render everyone, every thing, and every experience replaceable via a machine that can do the same.
In short there is nothing special about the things we value, it's just chemical inputs from the brain...
I encourage you to seek out a professional therapist. Feeling a lack of joy may be indicative of a mental health need or signal depression.
No, it's due to the potential logical conclusions of thinking about this.
Therapists can't help because they cannot address such philosophical questions, let alone even understand them.
Quoting Malcolm ParryIndeed. Our knowing it was machine-induced, if that was the case, or even if we thought that was the case, would become part of the experience.
But that's not necessarily bad. I'm told there are amazing VR things out there. I have only experienced one brief thing in a mall. I was a bird flying way above some mountains. It wasn't high quality VR. It was just a drawing, although a very nice one. Anyway, I knew I was not a bird, and that I was in VR. It was still a great experience. Except for getting slightly nausea. I knew if was VR, and it looked like a drawing. And yet, my stomach turned at a rather tame aerial maneuver. Despite the discomfort, it was amazing that that happened to me.
The experience machine doesn't give people the higher goods: it just gives people this shallow sense of hedonic happiness. The goods worth pursuing require suffering to achieve and maintain: there's a big difference between hedonic and eudaimonic happiness. E.g., courage, temperance, etc. don't exist in this experience machine.
However, let's stipulate that the experience machine is just a 1:1 simulator of the real world (including suffering) like the matrix: why would we choose one over the other? Because the more real a thing is, the more valuable it is. E.g., ceteris paribus, an imaginary chair is not as good as a real chair (even if they have the same properties other than existence).
And if we're not? What would suggest otherwise?
Quoting Bob Ross
That could just be status quo bias, I believe this already covered that line of reasoning: https://iep.utm.edu/experience-machine/#H5
Quoting Bob Ross
Those emotions are just chemicals in the brain, why wouldn't they exist in such a machine. You're not engaging with the thought experiment.
They're not just chemicals in the brain. All roads lead to the Hard Problem. The idea of consciousness arising from matter is incoherent, which is why there's been no scientific progress on it and there will be no progress on it. Matter doesn't exist. This is all an elaborate dream.
No. Computers exist because we [I]wanted[/I] them to exist, so that we could use them to do things we can't do otherwise. So we did things that the laws of physics would never have done, and made things that would not exist, but for our purposeful, future-serving actions.
And why we are discussing this topic? Because this topic is encoded in chemicals? If you put elements x, y, and z together, bringing about a certain reaction, and you throw some a, b, and c into it, do you get the idea that you chose to post about?
Courage, e.g., is not an emotion and requires fear which is painful: the experience machine is about pleasures (as far as I understand).
Like I said before, even if it does include suffering, it being fake makes it less valuable than it being real.
Quoting Darkneos
We can feel depressed due to dopamine or serotonin deficiency or depletion, and this can lead to the kinds of thoughts you seem to be having. On the one hand you are saying it's all just chemicals and yet on the other you say that these thoughts about it all being chemicals are not due to chemicals but are "logical conclusions". Do you not see that you are contradicting yourself?
Matter does exist though. We also have made progress on the hard problem, at least from the research I've seen.
Quoting Patterner
Probably, we know that brain chemistry can impact how people think and behave.
Quoting Patterner
The argument could be made that it was due to the reward system that our brains evolved in order to do stuff. If you didn't find things rewarding you wouldn't do them, that includes developing computers.
I think an earlier poster was going on about how we can't really tell if it's fake or real since it's all cascading neurons.
That said what is so special about courage and all those other emotions? Don't those also involve chemicals and areas of the brain that generate the fear response. Again we could just replicate it.
Quoting Janus
Well that's part of the problem as well and seems to reinforce the experience machine. But I also know thinking like this is causing the depression I feel.
What someone said is that I'm depressed and therefor thinking like this when it's the other way around, there is no contradiction. They assume I'm depressed. Though if it is just due to a chemical imbalance that would be unfortunate. Though evidence does seem to show that the chemical imbalance is a myth when it comes to depression.
Yah, it's all just chemicals. We breathe, we see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel, and bond because of these chemicals. The rest is just talk.
That talk though is the only reason any of this makes sense though, what you told me is a story to explain things just like we do for everything else (as someone pointed out to me).
It's also stupid to think mind and nature are separate when mind is part of nature, it doesn't exist outside of it. Also where does "Audacity" come from? Nature doesn't give a damn last I checked.
Like in my other thread, what you write makes little sense and isn't really related. What's your point? In fact in the last thread I told you that meaning making is the only reason you can type such things and have them understood.
And then what's the next step if it's all chemicals? Then what? You never really draw complete thoughts out. Also if it's all chemicals how is there Mind? And if we construct meaning that's chemicals too, so it's not really fiction then right? Like I said, incomplete thoughts.
How do you know?
I'm not doing this, it's not even related to the thought experiment.
I don't think the evidence shows that at all. Quite the contrary. My own experience has also showed me this: years ago, I experimented for a while with MDMA. The following day or two I would be horribly depressed, almost inconsolable.
The point is that your thoughts will reflect your mood, and your mood can indeed be subject to neurotransmitters. I have a friend who found life so intolerable that she always said she will end her life when her two children are no longer dependent on her. About five years agio she decided to try SSRIs and she told me she couldn't believe how differently she felt and thought about her life. She wished she had discovered them twelve years earlier.
Sure it is. Weren't you taking about chemicals? You just assume those chemicals exist, right? Maybe don't assume that.
I actually does, especially since it suggests that SSRI's aren't really well understood. I used to be on them and they didn't really make a difference other than making me feel flat.
Your friend sounds like they got lucky.
They do exist, that's why I said I'm not doing this.
:roll:
I guess you didn't get the memo, Rogue: There are no antirealists (immaterialists, disembodied minds, etc) in foxholes.
Quoting Janus
:up: :up:
I'm aware of that, but it's not like I can stop the thoughts. Also microdosing isn't possible where I live. Cannabis did nothing for me but make me sleepy though.
I mean I got two ends of the spectrum, one who says it's all chemicals and that mind just projects "fiction" (even though without that "fiction" you'd never know it was all chemicals) and someone who thinks matter isn't real.
It's an odd collection to be sure.
Quoting Patterner
I know susan blackmoor is one person along with Anil Seth and Thomas Metzinger, Daniel Denett as well. I've read random stuff that show the hard problem isn't a hard problem
So maybe it's not entirely chemicals, I mean...isn't the notion that it's all chemicals also just a story well tell to make sense of things?
You can look them up to get a picture of it. Though Blackmoor suggests consciousness is an illusion.
How does it not engage? I'm not sure what you mean.
My point was that eventually the experience would be unsatisfying and would not be the same experience even if every if it was an exact replica of existence.
Would I reply on a message board that was made up of AI bots and not some other humans? The replies would be probably more challenging and would would be perfectly tailored to my wants and needs but ultimately it would be unsatisfying as there is no connection. I have no idea if anyone on here is "real" but I'm convinced you are.
Then again, evolution has made us very adaptable so within a week the machine may be our new reality.
Is that true? That is a convoluted way to look at your existence.
No I cant imagine you would but I explained already.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Not really, and also not what is being said. AI was a different thread, not the experience machine. Though you assume AI will be tailored to your wants and not eventually beyond your reasoning ability.
And evolution sorta made us adaptable, humans dont really like change so were sorta adaptable creatures. But so far studies show no one would plug in to the machine.
Anyway your reply is still irrelevant to the main point and isnt engaging with the thought experiment
Why would I lie about that? Engage with what is being said. Why is it convoluted?
I understand why you dont feel joy. Carry on.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
I dont think you do, nor did you engage with my point.
Quoting RogueAI
It is, the thought experiment has nothing to do with whether you think matter exists or not. Heck that was converted in the IEP link.
The same roundabout question can be asked in alternative means, such as: Would you willingly undergo a lobotomy knowing that the lobotomy will make you perpetually pleased with all aspects of life in general, this irrespective of what might happen to you, even if the lobotomy entails you becoming generally oblivious via the operation?
Ill make the following hypothesis: The reason we wouldnt willingly lobotomize ourselves or else place ourselves into a perpetual experience machine (were the latter possible) for the sake of obtaining optimal pleasure or happiness has a lot to do with our inherent nature even if were not consciously aware of it specifically, an inherent nature where we (or at least a majority of us) value reality, thereby that which is in fact actual, and conformity to such, thereby truth, above all else.
Why then would we so value reality and, hence, truth? Maybe because we tacitly (if not also unconsciously) know with dire although unspoken conviction that only reality and truth thus understood can bring about our optimal happiness and wellbeing, aka our optimal eudemonia - such that here our eudemonia is not false, illusory, and thereby eventually results in our unwanted pains and suffering. And this unspoken desire then reigns supreme in our multitude of desires irrespective of the obstacles and strifes that might dwell on the way to approaching this pristine reality and ones conformity to, ultimately maybe unity with, it.
I grant that this hypothesis is not easy to logically establish. That it in many a way transcends the convictions of physicalism - which, after all, gives little if any understanding of the reality of meaning itself. And that many, in in fact holding this very desire, prefer to consciously give up on it rather than endure the unpleasantries of living with this desire perpetually unfulfilled. Thereby arriving at affirmed conclusions such as that there is no meaning to anything: something which can pacify an otherwise unfulfilled desire and what might best be described as the suffering associated with this lack of fulfillment.
That said, were this offered hypothesis to be more accurate than not, then of course we would not choose to lobotomize ourselves, or else permanently plug into an experience machine, for so doing would remove us from closer proximity to a better grasping of this very nature of reality, of what is in fact actual this being where, given the addressed hypothesis, the only genuine form of optimal eudemonia can be found an optimal eudemonia that, again, is in large part constituted of optimal understanding (and hence meaning) regarding that which is real and true.
-----
I wont endeavor to here prove this proposed hypothesis: its by no means something easy to do, and most certainly impossible in soundbite forum form. Nevertheless, the hypothesis does answer the question of why we (typically) dont do things such as desire to lobotomize ourselves or else enter the unrealities of an experience machine this irrespective of the prospective pleasures such might promise and possibly accomplish.
I should add that, in the absence of this hypothesis, I have not answer to give for why one ought not, for one example, lobotomize oneself, or else choose to perpetually remain in a virtual reality.
Part of me also just likes the unpredictability of reality and how we don't always get what we want. I dunno if you can just reduce it all down to just chemicals given how we are social animals and the stories we tell impact us and said chemicals. I mean mindset is a pretty big thing when it comes to well-being and some people can be depressed but have fine brain chemistry. We are complex beings.
Though maybe the value of life isn't something we can measure with words...
We are hardwired to like interacting. It ensures a higher likelihood of out genes being passed down.
However, the modern world has disconnected from the hunter gatherer scenario we evolved into. Some gamers and young people spend most of their time in a virtual world. they might swap reality of interacting with "people" with an augmented world that reacts with "people".
100% not for me
That's not really true, it's just that we are social animals, that's all.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
They do that because they don't really have much else. If it were easier they would choose real people.
I assume you would hold that rocketships, skyscrapers, leprechauns and unicorns are part of nature?
Quoting Darkneos
If Mind is part of Nature, it does.
But I agree, Nature doesn't give a damn, a damn and the giving of it belongs to Mind.
Quoting Darkneos
That's my point. Meaning making is the only reason...etc. Meaning is made, not pre-existent. Fabricated, not discovered or disclosed.
The chemicals are just fine as they are. Only for Meaning makers are the questions begged. And ultimately, both questions and answers are illusions.
Quoting Darkneos
It's questions all the way down. Especially in a forum like this. I'm neither energetic nor presumptuous enough to provide what would be required to close a thought. Do you think there are thoughts completed anywhere? I don't.
I would hypothesize that it's, rather, because of our attachment to the Narrative we've built, and the "I" which takes center stage; both of which are illusions we are strongly but fallaciously attached to.
In some sense, yes. You seem to have a very...limited view of what nature is. Mind is part of nature after all.
Quoting ENOAH
If was assume nature is some godlike entity. If by nature we mean the entire planet then no it doesn't, but animals seem to care and so do we.
Quoting ENOAH
So what if meaning is made? Like I said, if we didn't do that you wouldn't be on here communicating to me. You wouldn't even know about chemicals. The questions aren't begged for the meaning makers and questions and answers aren't illusions (illusions of what anyway?). It sounds like you have a limited view of reality.
Quoting ENOAH
There are, despite your efforts to appear otherwise. All you've reality shown is a limited and naive view of reality.
Quoting ENOAH
I truly don't think you understand the "I", let alone what illusion means or is. This sounds like you have a hammer and everything else is a nail. You can't even see how every statement you made isn't only contradictory but also wrong. You are a meaning maker whether you accept it or not, everything you've said is a story, a narrative.
And:
Quoting Darkneos
From the above, your argument seems to be something like the following formalization:
Please correct any inaccuracy. Anyway, I think this is a valid argument, but ultimately I'm skeptical that it is sound. Here are two worries, targeting (1) and (3) in particular:
Aboutness. Meaningful experiences tend to be about something else. For instance, meaningful bonds seem to refer to some other being, place or object. There is an accuracy condition due to this aboutness. My love for my dog is about that existing being, and without that being existing, as it is in the case of living inside the experience machine, my love is not accurate, because the being my love refers to does not exist. If this is correct, it seems like our meaningful experiences are either more than chemical compositions, or chemical compositions can be about something else, and then there is a potential reason to opt out of a life in the experience machine.
Self-defeat. The underlying assumptions of the argument risks striking too widely. Our beliefs, justifications, reasoning, use of logic, would arguably from this perspective be chemical compositions in the brain as well. Yet, they seem to have an accuracy condition, like the one mentioned above. One can accept this accuracy condition as an emergent property of chemical compositions, but then that leaves one with a tension: Why could not meaningful experiences have this accuracy condition if other chemical compositions can? If one rather denies the accuracy condition for reasoning as well, it seems to leave us in self-defeat. Our reasoning could be manipulated to make us think anything is the case so it is not special, it does not matter if it is accurate or not, thus risking to undermine almost all of our thinking, and even the argument itself.
Meaningful experiences don't tend to be about something else, it only seems that way due to the chemicals in us. You don't actually have love for your dog or anyone else, that's only the chemical flashes happening. Your love is already not accurate. Even so it would not be a reason to opt out of the machine since the sensation would be the same.
Quoting GazingGecko
It's not striking widely, it's referring to pleasure which appears to be the main motivation behind us doing anything. And if that good feeling can be replicated there is no reason to partake in life.
Thinking that it has anything to do with beliefs or reasoning is a strawman and dodging the question. Even if we did grant your point it would only serve to reinforce the argument, not undermine it. Also no one is talking about accuracy here.
So in the end neither of the two points really defeat the argument, merely avoid it.
I dont honestly want to be right about this and would rather believe that its more than just that and that life is wonderful and rich. But to do that would be to deny reality so it seems like either choosing blissful ignorance or cold reality. We humans are pretty good storytellers so maybe we just made it out to be more than it really is.
So far humanists and atheists if asked about this can only seem to dodge the question and implications of their system, never really reckoning with what they mean.
Nah, you are looking at things far too simplistically. There is a whole lot of structure to how those chemical are arranged. That structuring results in information processing occurring. That information processing is about things.
Thats the illusion, its really just the chemicals. It is that simple and our stories making it to be more than what it really is.
Without those chemicals it doesnt matter what the information is.
I suggest you consider the possibility that your perspective is self contradictory. How do you know anything about chemicals?
Does it matter? Doesn't change how they impact us and how they are the reason we feel what we feel.
Does it matter to you, whether your thinking is incoherent or not? Your thinking about the answer to my question might help you see that at present your thinking isn't coherent.
Quoting Darkneos
Again, you are looking at things in an overly simplistic way. The reasons we feel what we feel are quite complicated. You certainly aren't going to find any scientific backing for 'it's just chemicals'.
You're not though, you're implying that knowing about chemicals is due to information processing but that's not what's going on here. The reason you feel emotions is due to chemicals, hence why I said it doesn't matter what the information is it's the chemicals that make you feel.
Quoting wonderer1
There is actually plenty of backing for the just chemicals thing.
Preference satisfaction doesn't exactly lead to choosing the Experience machine.
I don't understand the jump you're making. Let us say I accept that my affection is constituted by chemical flashes in my brain. Why does that imply my affection cannot be about another being, place or object? I don't see how that follows.
Quoting Darkneos
I'm not sure that is true. Pleasure can often be a strong motivator, but I think it fails to be the main one in many important cases.
To illustrate my point, let us imagine that my dog is about to be put down due to illness. The veterinarian gives me an offer: their daughter wants to practice vivisection and my dog is perfect for this. They know it would be very upsetting for me to live with this fact, so they offer to use a hypnotist to make me forget the ordeal and make me instead believe that my dog died peacefully in my arms as a comforting memory. Furthermore, they will also pay me 100 dollars for me to spend on whatever pleases me.
I would arguably get more pleasure from taking the deal, but I would not be motivated to take it, nor do I suspect most would. I think this is due to us being motivated to care about what actually happens to the being, in this case, my dog, not just our own pleasurable sensations.
Quoting Darkneos
No, I disagree. I extended what seems to be the underlying assumption of your argument to other mental phenomena. This is not doing a strawman. I'm testing your assumption. I think your assumption faces a dilemma. Either, (A) accept that reasoning, which I guess would also be chemical flashes in your view, can refer to the world and be more or less accurate, but then you need to provide a reason for why other mental phenomena, like our meaningful experiences, cannot have such a reference; or (B) use the same underlying reasoning to reject reasoning itself as chemical flashes but thus ending up in a self-defeating position because your argument relies on the accuracy of reasoning.
This is not a strawman. If we were discussing act-utilitarianism and you used the trolley problem to justify your position, it would not be a strawman to bring up the transplant-surgeon case, or the utility-monster to test the position. If the underlying assumption has problems, that spells problems for the specific argument too.
Quoting Darkneos
Does it? How?
Quoting Darkneos
Is this not one of the most important aspects of the experience machine thought experiment? People seem to care about their meaningful experiences being accurate to reality. I get that you reject this, but I think this is what is under debate and should not be dismissed.
Because it's the chemicals causing the feeling, not the thing.
Quoting GazingGecko
That could be due to status quo bias, emotions seem to be getting in the way when the result in the end would be the same.
https://iep.utm.edu/experience-machine/#H5
Quoting GazingGecko
That's status quo bias.
Quoting GazingGecko
We aren't talking about reasoning, but the sensation of pleasure, the emotion. Reasoning isn't really due to chemicals.
From this Quora post:
https://www.quora.com/What-ethical-dilemmas-should-we-consider-as-technology-evolves-rapidly/answer/David-Moore-408?ch=15&oid=1477743839367290&share=118d711a&srid=3lrYEM&target_type=answer
Though I'm pretty sure Thermodynamics doesn't say anything about the simplest answer, I checked. If anything it argues against the notion of endless because entropy increases in a system...
I still don't see what you mean.
Firstly, I think it is quite arguable that the chemical reactions that cause our feelings are often themselves caused by external events, like the love I feel when I'm petting my dog. So I think my dog plays a causal role in my feelings of love towards him.
Secondly, once again, I don't see the jump. For example, my visual experience of watching my computer screen typing this reply is caused by my brain's neurochemistry and my optical system, but I don't see why that would mean that my visual experience is not about my computer screen. If one accepts that visual experiences could be about external things even if caused by our brains and optical systems, I don't see why my meaningful experiences of loving my dog that are caused by my brain and sensory systems as I interact with my dog, can't be about my dog.
Quoting Darkneos
And:
Quoting Darkneos
Status quo bias is a fair worry, particularly in the experience machine example. Still, it is less clear in the example with my dog.
Even if the results of our intuitions are biased to some extent concerning the experience machine, that is not enough to conclude that they are biased to the extent that these judgments are invalid. Status quo bias seems to influence how people respond to the thought experiment to some degree, but that does not mean it is only bias. Magnus Carlsen may have self-interest bias if he judges himself the best human chess-player in the world, but that judgment would still be valid.
Furthermore, your phrasing makes it seem like it is only bias that prevents people from accepting pure hedonism. That could be the case, but I don't think that has been established by experimental philosophy yet.
Quoting Darkneos
Sure, that could solve the dilemma by pointing out a difference between emotions and reasoning. However, this fix seems a bit ad hoc to me. Our reasoning is dependent on our brains, no?
That would still be the chemicals causing that love you have for your dog.
Quoting GazingGecko
I mean you can just look at people who use recreational drugs to see that those kinda feelings don't have to be about something else.
Quoting GazingGecko
It's illustrated in the link I gave to IEP.
Quoting GazingGecko
Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with the thought experiment. It's like the Quora post I mentioned was trying to argue in regards to the simplest solution.
It bugs me too. It's as if neurologists claim to have direct access to what it is to be me as "just chemicals" when they are only aware of this via their own subjective experiences of other people and their brains. It's as if neurologists are claiming to have some special power that the rest of us do not, in seeing everything as it is, even though they have the same limitations as everyone else in that we are prisoners of our subjectivity.
It's as if people are claiming that the view through their window is true, but the window isn't.
Well the was someone on here who claimed the mind is fiction or something, but thats just wrong since our experience of reality itself is all mind. Our brains construct a simplified version of reality so we can navigate it, not to mention its constantly making predictions and overriding incorrect guesses. Even what you believe impacts what you experience or perceive. So I guess I can see your point.
Like if mine isnt reality then nothing is given what neuroscience says. But thats obviously nonsense.
Though when I first learned that about our experience it threw me for a loop, but yeah mind is reality/nature (or whatever you call it).
If the mind is a fiction or illusion, what does that say about our understanding of the world given that we can only refer to how the world appears to the mind?
The visual of chemicals and neurons interacting is a visual model of what is happening. What you see is not only dictated by the type of senses you have but the medium by which the information travels (as light waves for vision, waves in the air for hearing, etc.)
If we were all actually stuck in our subjectivity then how could numerous people - all prisoners of their own subjectivity - work together towards a common goal and actually succeed? How many people were involved in getting humans to the Moon? How many people in their separate departments and jobs came together to accomplish something above and beyond what they do in their own departments if our minds are only subjective in nature? I think that the distinction between objective and subjective is a false dichotomy.
I dunno, I just chalk it up to lifes complicated.
If im honest I dont really have much to say about the nature of reality and all that. But I dont think writing mind off as fiction it correct and you end up stuck in a briar patch if you go down that route.
I guess my stance is be like water.