Talk:Experience machine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 14 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rpowers2. Peer reviewers: Ghorsefield.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Video Games and Drug Culture
These machines exist-- XBox, Play Station, Second Life, etc. I know plenty of people that waste their lives in a virtual world because they find it more pleasurable than the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There really should be a discussion regarding drug culture (which considering the date may have largely influenced the original conception of the thought experiment) and video games and contemporary concepts of virtual reality, which may serve as a challenge to the argument. Consider: Uriel-238 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One can in the simulation commit unethical acts (e.g. murder) without lasting repercussions (e.g. someone being dead, justice and punishment)
 * Considering that much artwork is digital nowadays, being consigned to a virtual reality doesn't mean one's product is necessarily fictitious. Digital art has merits as real art, and can be printed, if a real-world version is wanted. As 3D printing technology advances, we can conceive of anything digitally and then build it later with robots.
 * Video games often are the kind of meritocratic environment that we idealize for our economies and societies. In most games, you are instantly and consistently awarded for successful action, which follows that societal ideal of "an honest day's work for an honest day's pay" which is poorly represented (if at all) in reality.


 * yes, this is a necropost. but I think it's valid. 10 years in and nothing about video games / vr is surprising given how often I hear this thought experiment compared to the metaverse. might add this as a (brief) section at some point - this is my note to maybe do that later Meikkon (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternative criticism
Although I do not have any sources, I do know of two alternative criticisms of the experience machine.

The ethical reason: A person may choose to not enter the machine because it is inethical. A person who enters the machine loses the opportunity to perform ethical acts. This is because no one else within the machine is real. This is different than the other reasons, as this reason concerns a different type of ethics: interpersonal instead of intrapersonal.

Full fledged simulation: If the experience machine generates a full fledged simulation, such as an epic fantasy hack and slash adventure, then for many people the reasons not to go into the machine dissapear. #1 the experiencer can take any action they choose. #2 the experiencer can be someone: a hero. #3 the simulation is indistinguishable from a perfectly acceptable reality.

68.144.80.168 (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Addressing your ethical reason: One might interpret the thought experiment in such a way that the experience machine could be available for all sentient entities (or persons), and since according to ethical hedonism the most ethical act is the one that minimizes suffering and maximizes pleasure, the most ethical act would then be to grant everyone perpetual access to the experience machine, and replace all other sentient life with it. This means that the thought experiment is not just about intrapersonal ethics, but applies universally. If being in a (pleasurable) universal experience machine could become the future state of all sentient life, choosing this future would then be the most ethical act according to ethical hedonism, and no other ethical acts would be necessary. Another counter-argument could be that the experience machine could be a social machine that could allow for (pleasurable) interpersonal dynamics. In this case, there could still be ethical acts within the scope of the experience machine.


 * Addressing your fully-fledged simulation point: I do not agree with #3, since being indistinguishable from an acceptable reality is not the same thing as actually being real. The distinction between man-made and actual reality seems relevant to the argument. Of course, one may not accept this distinction as an integral part of one's concept of reality. In this case, the best refutation would be that even in a non-artificial world, there is no "direct" contact with reality; there is only the perception (experience) of it, so from the perspective of any sentient observer moment, experience itself can be seen as the only reality. If this is accepted, your refutation of #3 is valid. 88.66.135.29 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Hedonic Treader

What about Felipe de Brigard objection, its quite compelling and should be in the criticism section: http://www.unc.edu/~brigard/Xmach.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.166.17 (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs cleanup (MOS:PERSON)
This article does not comply with MOS:Person. First-person pronouns like "us" and "we" get thrown around. If someone would like to volunteer to clean up, that would be great. Sro23 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Derek (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC) What about "Total Recall" based on "We can rember it for you wholesale"

Additional 'in fiction' reference... Batman!
Just a thought. There's an episode of 'Batman The Animated Series' which touches on this theme with genuine deftness. Batman finds himself in a world where his parents are still alive and he can indulge himself in all the pleasures that his fortune affords as there is no need for him to continue his campaign against criminality. It's called 'Perchance to Dream' and it even has a Wikipedia page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchance_to_Dream_(Batman:_The_Animated_Series) 86.166.143.26 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)