The Experience Machine

This experiment was first introduced by Robert Novick, in his book, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia". Novick was an American political philosopher. He was a professor at Harvard University from 1969 to 1998.  

For this experiment to be most effective, you need to imagine that you have no attachments to this world; no family, no friends. Imagine that today is the first day of your life, but you are you, at the age you are today. 

You are sitting in front of a consent form, trying to decide if you want to sign. 

If you don't sign, you start your life in the real world with all of the hardships and disappointments that this world offers the human race.  

If you sign the form, you start out with all of your dreams coming true, (famous rock star, movie star, billionaire), whatever your biggest dreams are. You also have the guarantee to be kept permanently happy. Not much of a choice, you might think. The first life would be in the real world, whereas the second would be entirely within the experience machine.

This device enables you to live the whole of your life in a virtual-reality environment. All your experiences are designed to make you happier and more satisfied. But crucially, once in the machine you have no idea that you are not in the real world, nor that what is happening to you has been designed to meet your needs. It seems you are living an ordinary life in the ordinary world: it is just that in this life, you are one of the winners for whom everything seems to go right.

A couple things to keep in mind; success in life depends so much on luck: Were you born in the right place, at the right time, to the right parents? Were you endowed with the abilities your society values and rewards? Did you have access to the people and places that could help you get ahead? To say it is better to leave yourself at the mercy of Lady Luck when you could choose to be happy is crazy.

Also, if you think that this world is more real because it is caused by sub-atomic processes rather than silicon chips, perhaps you need to reconsider your notion of reality. After all, even our concept of the world of science beyond experiences is ultimately based on observations and experiments wholly within the world of experience. So in some sense, reality is just appearance.

Questions:

1.  Which option would you choose? And why?

2.  Why does it seem that we should feel apprehensive about option 2?

Why Cheaters Never Prosper

Today’s puzzle was created by the cognitive psychologist, Peter Wason, back in the 1960’s.  The test is usually referred to as the four-card task.  It was developed to test our logical reasoning, but by adding a second part to the test, evolutionary philosophers, think they have found an interesting ability, that our mind has, to catch cheaters in our society.

For you to see the total effect of the test, you need to follow the puzzle step-by-step, and not read ahead until you finish the previous part.

The test goes something like this;

Part 1.  All four cards in the first group bellow have a letter on one side and a number on the other.  If the rule states that;

 "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side."

Which two, and only two, cards do you need to turn over to find out if the rule is true?

 

 Now that you've had a chance to think about the problem, the correct answer is to select the "A" and "7" cards. If you didn’t guess the correct answer, don’t feel bad. About 90% of people miss this question. Most people get it wrong by selecting the "A" and "4". The reason the "7" card needs to be turned over is because, if there is a vowel on the other side, the rule would be false. On the other hand, regardless of whether there is a vowel or consonant on the other side of the "4" card, it doesn't help to confirm or deny the statement. Remember the rule states that, if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side, but does not say the opposite, if there is an even number on one side then there is a vowel on the other side.

Part 2. If you didn't get the previous problem correct, try the following one: Each card contains a person's age on one side, and what the person is drinking on the other side. Now, pretend you are the bartender. Which two cards would you need to turn over to verify this rule;
 

-->

"If a person is drinking a beer, then that person needs to be at least 21 years of age"

 

-->

 

You probably figured out that you need to flip over the "beer" card and the "16 years old" card. Now take a minute to notice that this problem is the exact same problem as part 1, only with alcoholic beverages replacing vowels, non-alcoholic ones replacing consonants, overage ages replacing even numbers, and underage ages replacing odd numbers. Why do you think people who are not able to solve the previous problem, or at least take more time to solve it, are able to get this one not only correct, but without much thought? Most likely, the explanation is the one given by many evolutionary philosophers. I’m just going to paraphrase some of their main points;

Because our brains are a product of evolution, and the theory that part of our evolution took place while humans have lived in groups and societies, it would be advantageous for us and our genes, if we had evolved the capabilities to deceive and cheat the others in our group, thus being able to get a bigger portion of the necessities needed for survival.  It would also then be advantageous to have an evolved “cheating detector,” thus insuring that we and our families get a fair share of the necessities. These philosophers believe that, because of group and intergroup interactions, we have evolved the ability to easily detect those that are lying and cheating, thus being able to protect ourselves. That's why in part 2, it is relatively easy to tell who at the bar might be lying. 

Remember, this is just a theory. There have been other hypotheses as to why we seem able to figure out part 2, but not part 1.

 I would love to hear from anyone who disagrees with this theory, or, anyone that would like to make a comment.

Trolley Dilemma

Because most philosophical ideas can only be contemplated in the abstract, philosophers have had to come up with different and imaginative puzzles and thought experiments to help them study and teach their ideas. I want to post one or two of these philosophical puzzles each week, and have an open discussion. My hope is that this blog will be a fun and interesting way for people to think about who they are and why they make the life choices they do.

I thought it would be fun to start with a classic. The Trolley Dilemma is a thought experiment in ethics. Originated by the philosopher Philippa Foot in the 1960's. It has gone through many variations, but is ostensibly this;

Part One

There is a runaway trolley hurtling down a track towards five workers. You are standing next to the track and next to you is a lever that if pulled will divert the trolley onto a separate track with only one worker. There is not enough time to warn or help the workers. So, if you don't pull the lever five people die and if you pull the lever one person dies. 

Some questions

1. Do you pull the lever? why or why not?

2. Is there a moral obligation for you to pull or not pull the lever?

3. If you answered yes to question 2, where does that obligation come from?

Part Two

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you. The only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save the five.

More questions

1. Would you push the fat man? Why or why not?

2. How is part two morally different or morally the same as part one?

Part Three

This is not usually included in the thought experiment, but I think it's an interesting scenario to ask parents;

The situation is the same as part one, you are standing at a lever that can divert a runaway trolley from killing five people. But this time, the single person on the diversion track is one of your children. 

1. If you would have diverted the trolley before, would you still?

2. If no, how many people would you have to be saving on the track before you would divert the trolley and sacrifice your child?

If you feel like participating in this first thought experiment, leave your answers and any other comments you'd like to make in the comment section.  I'll try and respond to any questions as soon as possible. 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages

Bottom of Form

| Full Headers

Reply Reply All Forward Forward

Mail Search

WelcomeInboxNewFoldersMail Options