The philosophy thread (all welcome)

[Chazef]

some of my thoughts on the experience machine:
If an experience machine exists, I have a feeling society is highly advanced and Robert's capacity to contribute to society is therefore smaller than it may be in today's society (i.e. I'm thinking a whole lot of diseases have been cured, the economy's doing great etc and the role of a person is less contributory and more participatory in society). And this makes me think that if a person can live a life which has almost no effect on their society, why not spend it in bliss via the experience machine?

My second thought is that the human mind would be repelled by the experience machine it is because not only does it involve a loss of meaning in society, but it involves deceit and a loss of self. As for deceit, Robert will be living a life which is a simulation without knowing it is, so he's being lied to the entire time (however I believe a reality like that is no less real than the 'true' reality). As for loss of self, he's having the memory of his decision and potentially the memory of his former life removed, which is enough to make me in that situation question whether it would still really be me living out those experiences or a different person entirely (kind of like with teleporters, 'will it really be me on the other side?')

So yeah I believe if he's in a society where he can't really contribute anything, then all that matters is him and therefore in terms of hedonism, the experience machine is the way to go, so long as it's really going to be him on the other side

[DJA]

Also on the experience machine I thought a little about the sense of aversion that I did happen to experience when I read the situation (please forgive me if I touch on ideas already expressed!!) and for me the reason why I shy away from such a possibility is the simple fact that once the person signs up for the experience machine, he becomes a burden on society - entirely dependent as such. As we as human beings commonly work towards independence, supporting ourselves and becoming hopefully self-sufficient (still relying on society but getting a job and earning etc etc), by spending the rest of life in the experience machine, his bodily needs for nutrition etc etc must still be taken care of and that requires resources. He doesn't do anything for himself anymore so I assume it is automated - still this would represent a burden on society.

Sorry if that is entirely incoherent. I lurk here a lot.

[slothpomba]

First of all, thanks everyone for the replies so far! I was kind of doubtful whether i would keep it going since it is a fair bit of effort to prepare and there's not much point if no one replies, at this stage we have plenty of people though. Special thanks to those who are posting for the first time! As i've always said, you don't need to say anything special, long or fancy to join in, you just need to take the plunge  .

I'll try get to everyone in due time! The sole disadvantage of being gifted with all the replies is that there are so many to respond to. I do read them all (as i'm sure do far more people than me) and of course if i agree with them there is little for me to say about them. So, don't take the silence as not liking them or there being something wrong with them. My own response will come a little later as well.

Could the next poster please choose two numbers between 1-110. You can either do it randomly using this website or just pick it out of your head. If we have, that way in the event the number is already used we can use the second one. It also gives me leeway to choose the better or more interesting of the two as well. Keep in mind i'm still also taking suggestions and the table of contents is in the first post of this thread.

Finally, it'd be great to get some feedback on how people think its going so far. If you have any thoughts, feel free to share them, no use keeping the silent. In particular, in the first post i said ever 5th post would be more broad idea/issue/religion type thing, i was wondering what people (honestly, as well) thought about this. Is this something you'd likely join in on or would you rather we keep going with the little problem stories? There is bound to be some crossover between the two anyway but problems are a limited framing and discussing the issue as a whole is a more of a broad frame for it (each has their own up and downsides). So, if people feel any way on this some honest feedback/suggestions would be great.

[achre]

100
86

[VivaTequila]

Depends.

Do you want a life of unfailing happiness? How can you have the foresight to be able to predict that now.

A few logistical questions with the machine arise. For example - if you are inside the machine, so long as there is truly no way that you can identify that your reality is unreal, and in addition you will 100% receive constant happiness (e.g. you won't get sick of your rock and roll cocaine and stripper lifestyle), then why the heck not take that opportunity? If nothing could go wrong, you would live a pretty fucking good life.

For me the question just comes down to this: assuming the experience machine gives you ultimate happiness, what do you want from life? To be happy?

What value is there, if any, to not having a perfect life? How does this change your opinions?

[slothpomba]

Wow! Surprised to see a post (hell, even i'm not currently posting myself). Mucho appreciated though. I'll post my own thoughts and a new problem soon (we'll problem run them in conjunction i reckon, at least for a period).

Do you want a life of unfailing happiness? How can you have the foresight to be able to predict that now.

I think this is a great point; it touches on a deeper concept as well. Some people say it's wrong to take (addictive) drugs because you're effectively ending your free will or limiting it in the future. You are using your current free will to destroy your free will (or limit it). Many people find that idea wrong or offensive. In Buddhism, there is this idea you are *literally* a different person from every moment to the next, in a way, future you, future VivaTequila, is actually a totally different dude. You are making a decision for someone different.

Take being a five year old, if five year old you made a decision constraining your life now, it probably wouldn't be the best decision.

A few logistical questions with the machine arise. For example - if you are inside the machine, so long as there is truly no way that you can identify that your reality is unreal, and in addition you will 100% receive constant happiness (e.g. you won't get sick of your rock and roll cocaine and stripper lifestyle), then why the heck not take that opportunity? If nothing could go wrong, you would live a pretty fucking good life.

As i elaborated earlier in the thread, turns out i interpreted it wrong, its more about politics and society than individual happiness. If happiness or our own selfish desires are the only things that drive us (in society, our lives and our morals), why isn't every single man, woman and child hooked up in an experience machine?

I'll elaborate further in my own post later on but there’s the idea here there is something bigger than ourselves, there is something bigger than our own happiness. For me, i think one of the guiding motivations of our lives should be to live in service to each other, obviously, my views break the idea of the experience machine then. If part of the reason we exist is to serve each other, hooking you up to the experience machine clearly isn't a viable option.

There are also different ethical views at play here too. One is consequentialism, how good an act is, and that is judged by the outcome. Stabbing you is bad because it hurts you (consequence). Poisoning wells is bad because it damages society. There are other views like deontological ethics, basically, it focuses on your duty to do things (and the rule that certain things are just plain wrong – killing might be sometimes allowed if you’re a consequentialist, say because it has a good outcome (saving lives), under deontology, I think it would never be allowed). Put simply - "Deontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions".

Under a utilitarian/consequentialist idea, this is probably a bad idea. Even under a deontological kind of view (probably stronger so) we have a duty to serve society, it doesn’t matter if it’ll make us (or even everyone) happy by jumping in the machine, that’s focusing on the consequence, consequences don’t matter, we have a duty.

[Vermilliona]

But I think looking at the duty/usefulness to society concept, we're straight away assuming that the reality Robert is experiencing (the one in which he is thinking whether to sign the contract or not) is a 'true' reality (insofar as such a definition can be made).

His need to be useful to society comes from his perception that others in that society are really sentient beings whose pain or suffering could be lessened through his contribution. If he were in the experience machine, he would see reality exactly the same way, and would in fact be making some contribution to it (bringing people pleasure through music). Why would his contribution in that society be any less valid than his contribution in this society, since there is no way of knowing if his 'contract signing' reality isn't also a simulated experience? Both realities are/will be perceived by Robert as real, there is no objective way of determining if his current reality is a real one, and he would make a contribution in both - the only difference is that in the experience machine reality he is happy.

So, if we accept that Robert can't justify his perception of 'contract reality' as true, and that there's no way of knowing if he isn't in a simulated society already, the only thing he can be rationally sure of (if he thinks therefore he is and bla) is his own existence, so as the only definitely sentient being in this scenario, isn't the choice which maximizes his own happiness the best one? This argument doesn't really work on a real-world level, because then we can justify murder and etc since no-one except you is 'real', but if we're looking exclusively at a case where it's 'positive contribution in this reality' vs 'positive contribution in another (happier) reality' then, given one can't be seen as more real than the other, Robert is justified in choosing the one that gives him the greatest happiness, since they are equal in all respects except this one.

Sorry for all the parentheses and muddled arguments, just wanted to throw this in there 

[slothpomba]

But I think looking at the duty/usefulness to society concept, we're straight away assuming that the reality Robert is experiencing (the one in which he is thinking whether to sign the contract or not) is a 'true' reality (insofar as such a definition can be made).

That really depends how you define (or how you could even begin to figure out, in an empirical/scientific sense) what is the true reality. Many of our scales are relative, rather than absolute. Take temperature, 0 is the temperature water freezes at, everything is relative to that. A kilometer is only really relatively defined by meters. If we take our every day reality (or Roberts every day reality) as a base point, it seems on a relative scale, going in the machine is "less real". I guess unless its otherwise proven or argued, we just kind of grant that he's living in reality (as people commonly call it).

His need to be useful to society comes from his perception that others in that society are really sentient beings whose pain or suffering could be lessened through his contribution. If he were in the experience machine, he would see reality exactly the same way, and would in fact be making some contribution to it (bringing people pleasure through music). Why would his contribution in that society be any less valid than his contribution in this society, since there is no way of knowing if his 'contract signing' reality isn't also a simulated experience? Both realities are/will be perceived by Robert as real, there is no objective way of determining if his current reality is a real one, and he would make a contribution in both - the only difference is that in the experience machine reality he is happy.

He would see rea2lity exactly the same way but he would not be making the same contributions. If he makes music in the real world, he is changing the lives of actual, living beings. If he makes music in the machine, all he is doing is altering the firing of neurons in his brain, it's pretty much like a dream. He isn't really improving the world or humanity, he's just tinkering with his head and imagination. There is no way of knowing once you're in the machine, thats true but you make the free decision to enter into the machine knowing you cant tell the difference. I think that decision is a key consideration here.

It's a bit like having voting in a party that wants to end democracy, you end up with a very weird dilemma. In this case, you freely will to give up your free will or to permanently extinguish your perception of reality, for some people, there is something wrong in all these actions.

I guess you're argument (unless i read it wrong) hinges on the idea we cant be sure or you aren't sure this reality is the real one. I'm not really sure if i'd go for that, it adds a whole other meta-level to it. It's certainly not invalid, it's a great argument! Don't know if i'd personally make it though (although i am biased, i want to see a particular answer here, no secret i'm sure).

[slothpomba]

New topic (we'll still continue with the old one for awhile too!)

5. A Clockwork Orange (social, political and legal)



Bit tired now but will right a quick summary tommorrow (ish..). The main question here is obvious though, is this the wrong or right thing to do? You dont even need to frame it in terms of wrong or right i guess, which side are you on here? Do you think its useful and justifiable or are you on the side of the civil libertarians with their objections? You could also easily formulate your own individual pro's and con's too. Knowledge of the film clockwork orange will help with this one but it isn't essential. Imagine showing a thief a film of someone stealing things and shocking them every time the stealing comes on. It's based on old psychology (now superseded i guess) that you can condition people like animals (indeed, punishment does work on animals to a degree, think about training dogs, etc).

[brightsky]

i reckon this particular philosophical problem boils down to two fundamental questions:

1. what is truth?
2. how important is truth to us?

let us address these questions in turn. what is truth? many theories of truth have been proposed. some philosophers think that truth is an absolute concept, while others reckon that what is to be considered truth may vary from individual to individual. our job is to work out which of the proposed definitions best reflects how we use the 'term' in everyday life. 'truth' is but a term and like all terms it refers to a particular concept. our task is to discover articulate what exactly this concept is. consider the proposition: 'ben is wearing a baseball cap.' we can form in our minds a mental image which accurately reflects this proposition. now, what does it mean to say that this proposition is true? we SAY that this proposition is TRUE if and only if the mental image which we conjured in our minds matches what appears before us in the world of our experiences. if, in the world of my experiences, the person whom i associate with the name 'ben' actually has something which i associate with the term 'baseball cap' atop his head, then it is said that the proposition is true for me. so, what is truth then? we say that proposition P is true for person x if and only if what is the case in the world of x's experiences matches the mental image which x associates with proposition P. indeed, i find that there is a great deal of merit in the correspondence theory of truth, which may be off-putting to some simply due to the way in which it is sometimes introduced. of course, under this definition, P is either true or not true. it makes no sense to say that P is 80% true. but what of dreams? are dreams 'real'? intuitively, people say that dreams are 'less real' than physical reality. i don't see how such an argument is tenable or how it makes sense given the definition of truth proposed above, since dreams are but a type of experience, just like physical reality. now, we get to the heart of the problem which we have at hand. is robert to be transported to a world which is in some sense less real than the world in which he currently resides? i think that this is case where language has gone on holiday, to put it in wittgensteinian terms. the wording of the problem is incredibly misleading. it is almost as if we are simply to assume that the world which robert is to be transported is in some sense less real than the world in which he currently resides. this hypothetical situation is just as absurd as the dream scenario which we considered above, and only really presents itself as a 'problem' due to misuse of the term 'real'.

let us now turn to the second question. how important is truth to us? now that we have defined precisely what is meant by truth, and alluded to the contexts in which the term makes sense (and those in which the term makes no sense), this question should be a whole lot easier to answer. note, however, the adjective 'important' in the question. unlike the first question, this question concerns the desires of a particular individual. the thought that one is living in a 'real' world might give a particular individual a certain amount of gratification. how important 'truth' is to an individual depends on the amount of gratification which the individual receives from the thought that he/she is living in a 'real' world, regardless of the reason why the gratification is felt. (in most cases, gratification is felt due to some misconception on the subject's part regarding what truth is. however, such an observation is of no consequence in this particular instance.) naturally, then, the answer to this question varies from individual to individual, and we are in no position to comment, since none of us are 'robert'.

this little puzzle reminds me of one of those hackneyed, pseudo-philosophical problems which movies such as the matrix and the truman show (which are both wonderful movies mind you) present to viewers. what if we live in a reality which isn't actually real? the existence of such 'philosophical problems' is part of the reason why wittgenstein believed there are no philosophical problems at all.

[Jono_CP]

I love philosophy, unfortunately I do not do this as a subject which is something I regret (though our school does not teach it).

I think this quote from Socrates is quite funny and not to be literally appreciated or liberated: "My advice to you is to get married. If you find a good wife, you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher."

The website 'Goodreads' is a fantastic resource to search up various philosophical concepts and quotes as well as general reading, highly recommended.

[roynish]

For the Clockwork Orange question, it all comes down to one question: Is it better to be bad than to be conditioned to be good?

I think we should also establish what free will is
(will state my opinions later; really busy right now but I wanted to contribute to this post!)

[slothpomba]

Welcome to the thread for the new comers first of all! Kinda let it lapse there for a bit but (at least for the holidays) i'll try keep it chugging along, as long as the interest continues (these are a lot of work).

For the Clockwork Orange question, it all comes down to one question: Is it better to be bad than to be conditioned to be good?

I agree and disagree at the same time. I think you hit one of the primary points but it isn't the only point. There's also a consideration about human rights and free will here for me.

I think this scenario is probably the wrong way to act. Certainly among all the rights we have, we have the right to our own minds. It seems like a human rights violation (and certainly a problem of professional/medical ethics) to "brainwash" someone like that. Even though they are willing, does not necessarily make it right. In the case of criminal law systems, people often plead guilty or accept plea bargains not because they really want to (sometimes, they're not even guilty) but they fear a much worse outcome if they don't, they're almost forced into it (which is where elements of consent and coercion come into play).

On a deeper level (i'm now reading things into the problem that aren't written there but oh well) it seems like an unsatisfactory solution. People committing crime simply because they want to commit crime (or are arseholes) isn't the only or perhaps primary factor behind crime. I haven't current checked but i'd imagine socioeconomic factors play a huge role as well, alongside other things like law enforcement resources. It seems this would treat the criminals currently in the system but doesn't really address the root causes of crime at all (which should be our main focus really, RE: Reform-punishment-locking people up VS actually reducing the origins of crime).

I think we should also establish what free will is

For me, its about being able to act as you normally would, according to your dispositions.

Some people say that your really good friends can often predict what you will do or say. This may be true. I once had a friend told me she could predict what i would say in a conversation and she could probably even construct an imaginary conversation with me in her head. If your friend is a vegetarian for instance, you can predict with a fair certainly what they will order at McDonalds (as a veggo myself, the answer is not very much..).  Some reckon being predictable or somewhat determined impinges on your free-will, i don't necessarily buy that idea.

If we just acted randomly or unpredictably, that would seem to be almost the opposite of free will. We're not really doing what we want if its just random, its not all that free either it seems. So, acting according to how i would normally act or want to act, without restriction, seems to be a fairly free will to me.

[brothanathan]

Hi guys,

Just wondering what would you have to catch up on if you didn't do Units 1/2. I'm considering doing the subject at DECV for 3/4.

[anna.comet]

Hi guys,

Just wondering what would you have to catch up on if you didn't do Units 1/2. I'm considering doing the subject at DECV for 3/4.

Hi Brothanathan (luv the username btw). First of all, I 110% recommend pursuing philosophy in year 12. Philosophy is such a fun and interesting subject, and you'll learn a lot about life in general, which unfortunately not all of the VCE subjects on offer actually assist in... Philosophy teaches us how to question and to challenge, something that is becoming more and more pressing in our day and age (*cough cough* fake news *cough cough*).

You wouldn't have to catch up on anything for Year 12, which is a HUGE win!!!! Yay!!! The year 12 course consists of ten new philosophers, and ten new texts, so the only things that we really carry across from year 11 are skills. In year 11, we learn how to reduce arguments to their most basic points, how to evaluate and analyse, and how to write philosophy essays and such. These are all things that you cover again in year 12, so don't sweat it at all!

I hope you decide to study philosophy next year!!!! Try to get a friend or two to join Distance Ed with you, because having a friend really helps to challenge and push your thinking