The Experience Machine: A Thief of the Best within Us

Experientialism is the view that the quality of one’s conscious experience is the sole determinant of the quality of one’s life. Thus, a person’s life goes better when he undergoes better experiences. However, it does not matter whether or not these experiences actually happen in reality. What is important is that the person believes that he is going through such experiences. For example, a man is fooled to think he won the lottery. The fact that he believes he had won the lottery makes his life go better, even though he hasn’t won a penny, for he will have experienced the same joyous feelings as a real-life lottery winner. And his life will continue to go better due to this experience up to the point in which he discovers it was all a hoax. Conversely, let’s say another person is deceived in thinking her father has passed away, when in actuality he is still alive. Her life would be worse off because she genuinely believes that her father is dead. So in a sense, it is not what is true that matters to the experientialist, but what is believed to be as true.

In opposition to experientialism, Robert Nozick presents the idea of an “experience machine” in order to expose the problems of such a view. In this counter-example, an individual is able to hook up his brain to a machine that allows him to experience any experience he desires. After every two years, this person goes off the machine only to program the life experiences he wants for the next two years. Or better yet, he can even program what he’ll experience for the rest of his life. Once he is on the machine, the experiences he undergoes are as real to him as if he had gone through them in reality. Thus, in the machine he immediately loses the awareness of not being in reality. From the experientialist perspective, this machine would be a great idea since the quality of an individual’s life is measured by his conscious experiences. A person can simply program a series of great experiences to go through in order to make his life great.

Yet, Nozick presents three factors that experientialism seemingly ignores which would prevent most people from hooking up to the machine. Firstly, most people “want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them” (43). The main reason for this, I think, is that, by nature, every man desires achievement. And there is a greater sense of achievement and worth in actually choosing and doing a certain thing in reality, such as, say, discovering a breakthrough in science, than merely experiencing such an experience without going through all that it takes to actually achieve such a lofty goal. Secondly, most people “want to be a certain way, to be a certain person” (43). There is no certainty that the person hooked up to the machine will be the same man in reality as he was on the machine. Thirdly, “plugging into a machine limits us to a man-made reality” (43). The simple fact is, the experiences one goes through in the machine are not real; they are fabrications. One has no deep connection to the real world and thus, seemingly no great significance. All these factors provide reasonable objection to experientialism.

However, there is a counter-argument that is capable of collapsing Nozick’s entire objection. A number of thinkers would argue that from the perspective of the person in the machine, there is no difference between the experiences in the machine with those in reality. Therefore, we can say that the realness of the experiences produced by the machine are identical to those in reality; and thus, the machine can pretty much be considered interchangeable with reality. In that case, the experiences within the machine yield the same effect on the person as they would in reality. And if this holds true, then each argument that Nozick laid forth can be brushed aside. As far as the person in the machine knows, he is not merely experiencing the act of doing certain things but he is actually doing them. He does exactly what it takes to undergo a certain experience in the machine as he would have in reality. Moreover, because a person will not be able to realize the difference between the experiences he undergoes in the machine and those he would undergo in reality, then it is conceivable that his character would develop in the same way. Thus, it is possible for a man to attain a desirable character within the machine. Nevertheless, his character in reality would not matter anyways because if he did chose to live in the machine then he would conceivably continue to do so and never enter reality again. Furthermore, because it can be assumed that the realness of the experiences a person undergoes in the machine is identical to that in reality, that person can find the same deep significance in a man-made reality as he would in reality. In each case, there is no way he can tell of any difference between the authenticity of the experiences he undergoes in the machine and those he would experience otherwise in reality.

And if the experiences of the machine are in fact identical in realness with those of reality then there should be absolutely no reason not to hook up to the machine. Going on the machine can only benefit one’s life. For one thing, in reality, it is not guaranteed that one will have great experiences. Moreover, suffering is something that must be encountered. But with the machine, one’s life can be seemingly more glorious than ever possible in reality and also free of any pain or suffering.

If the counter-argument to Robert Nozick’s objection to experientialism were true, then I would agree with the opinion that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by hooking up to the experience machine. However, I think that the counter-argument is flawed. Even if one cannot tell the difference between the experiences on the machine with those of reality, the experiences do not produce the same results. We must be reminded that that the experience machine reproduces experiences solely in the mind. Someone may think that he is undergoing an experience; but in physical reality, he‘s not. A prime example would be a man on the machine who undergoes the experience of bodybuilding. Although he is totally convinced of building his body, in reality his body would be the same. The mind would fool the senses into perceiving growth of the body, but the body can never grow because the mind commands it to. For physical reality, which would include our bodies, exists independent of consciousness. Another counter-example would be of a skill or craft a man on the machine would have experienced learning, say, boxing. On the machine, he could be the finest fighter in the land. However, he would not be able to carry those skills into reality because they were all in his mind to begin with. A conscious experience does not explicitly translate into a physical experience.

And thus, there is the rub. The root of the problem lies between the two fundamental types of existence. There is the physical reality, which exists independent of consciousness. And conversely, there is the world of abstractions, which relies solely on consciousness. The man on the machine finds escape from physical reality by immersing himself in abstract reality, which essentially is a reality completely produced by his mind with the help of the machine. No matter how convinced he may be of the realness of experiences produced in the machine, the truth is they are not real and will never be. The idea that reality can never be objective or that truth is based on perspective is completely erroneous. For it true that the universe exists independent of consciousness; galaxies will still form and the planets will continue to turn far after the end of the humanity, in which the mind of man that perceives is no more.

In defense of my opposition against experientialism, I had mentioned before that it is within the nature of man to find achievement, for it gives value to his existence. And in order to achieve, one must inevitably encounter struggle, yet, overcome it. And that, to me, seems to be the meaning of a man’s life- to find happiness by achieving goals that he alone chooses to set for himself. I think this is the main reason why, whether they realize it or not, most people would never hook up to the machine. What good is it to consciously choose to deceive yourself? What could be said of the man who willingly chooses to escape reality by hiding in a machine to live a completely artificial life? What genuine sense of the triumph in man can this machine ever produce? The answers to such questions, I think, justify my opinion of utterly rejecting experientialism.