Nozick’s “Experience Machine” is a thought experiment designed to argue against the philosophy of hedonism. The scenario Nozick presents is one where individuals have the choice to plug into a machine which simulates the most pleasurable existence imaginable to the individual. An existence programmed with enough simulated depth to provide the individual with any experience desired. The question Nozick then poses is, would you plug in?
Nozick answers himself that most would not be interested in such a machine in 3 different ways but the skeleton of each of his points is that most would not plug themselves into the experience machine because there is something other than pleasure that is important as an end. His three points are, one, people actually want to do certain things, not just experience them, two, people want to be a certain way, a certain kind of person, and it is impossible to be that person within the simulated reality of the experience machine, three, people want to make actual contact with reality.
Nozick then considers if any one of these reasons isolated is enough to explain what is good for an individual as an end, in addition to pleasure, by modifying his experience machine and turning it into the transformation machine. Nozick’s transformation machine is exactly like the experience machine, except it now has the ability to change the individual plugged into it. If the individual experiences building muscle, or learning a new language, they will exit the transformation machine with these perks. Nozick thinks most would still refuse to plug themselves into the machine, and to emphasize his point even further he sweetens the deal to max with his final machine modification; imagining the result machine.
The result machine is now able to produce in the real world any result the individual produced in the machine. If we refuse this final machine proposal, it is because, Nozick believes, there is something fundamentally important to people about living our own lives beyond just the experiences themselves.
If Nozick is right about what people would do in response to these machines, and what the rational response is to these machines, then hedonism is false.
Before any critique, I love this passage, I love that Nozick’s idea of the best experiences ever involve “writing a novel” and “making a friend”, things we can do here in reality, whilst attached to a machine that can literally provide any experience imaginable. I know if I were hooked up to the machine I would not be doing anything like that.
My first problem with the experience machine is that I do not think it would provide the individual any greater pleasure. People have a tendency to very quickly return to a stable level of happiness in response to positive or negative events. As a person accumulates more wealth they are able to satisfy their earlier desires but they will generate new desires which increase in tandem with their wealth. I don’t disagree that the hedonist would still choose the machine life over reality, but assuming the hedonist’s life is at least reasonably satisfactory I don’t believe the machine could offer any meaningful improvement on their level of pleasure or happiness.
Less of a critique and more of a thought but there are some instances where it makes intuitive sense that someone may prefer life in the experience machine to reality. People spending life in prison, or people who are severely disabled (i.e. Locked-in syndrome).
My final critique is on his extension of the experience machine, the results machine. Hedonists need not be egoists, if any result may come about from the hedonist’s actions in the results machine, maybe entering and manipulating the results machine is what we ought to do as it enables us to do all sorts of good for the world whilst safely floating in some sort of tank. Hedonism is not a monolith, and I feel that Nozick’s attack on hedonism is on one particular egocentric branch of hedonism.
Back to Blog