Reverse Experience Machine

Everyone remember the Experience Machine? It is used as a rebuttal of pure-hedonism in value theory, or to evaluate the pleasure principle as a primary drive in a person. The weak form (what minimum conditions must be met to plug in) is becoming increasingly interesting to me. It shows what values you hold to be important, other than pleasure and reality.

I have been thinking a lot about inverses lately, and when you invert the Experience Machine, you get a rebuttal of pure-truthism. In its' weaker form, you get to see how people gamble as well ^.~

The Reverse Experience Machine (weak form):

1. You are given indisputable proof that you are living in a simulated reality
• Yes, sort of like "The Matrix"
2. Everyone else is a computer simulation, including all the people you know
3. You have always lived in this virtual reality
4. You can get "unplugged" and live in reality, but you can never plug back in if you do
5. You are not told what unplugged reality is like

So far, many people seem willing to take this chance. You might wake up burning to death, you could wake up as a church mouse, or you could wake up in a fantastic utopia. You don't know, you'd just have to risk it.

Several questions are raised by the weak formulation:

• Do you value your lived experiences as authentic?
• Could continue to do so?
• Do you value all that you have invested in the virtual reality?
• Relationships
• Education
• Way of life
• To what degree is actual reality valued?
• This directly correlates to the probability that someone would unplug
• How motivated are you by curiosity? (yes, this one is common)
• How much of a gambler are you?
• 49.999% chance it's better, 49.999% chance it's worse, 0.002% chance it's the same

The Reverse Experience Machine (strong form):

1. You are given indisputable proof that you are living in a simulated reality
• Yes, sort of like "The Matrix"
2. Everyone else is a computer simulation, including all the people you know
3. You have always lived in this virtual reality
4. You can get "unplugged" and live in reality, but you can never plug back in if you do
5. You are given indisputable proof that unplugged reality is dystopian

Most people probably use mixed values and strategies, so the weak forms of the thought experiment actually tell you more about an individual, whereas the strong forms are clear enough to make a point.

The bias that both of these reveal about the original and reverse Experience Machine is that people many simply choose what is familiar. You're already used to the reality/unreality that you know, and "if it's not broken, don't fix it."

I'm interested in what people would do in both formulations of the Reverse Experience Machine. Please tell me what you'd do in the comments section if you are so inclined!

Status Quo: 101

I had my first sociology class today. This is my second shot at post-secondary, and dear me is it sloooooooow.

I skipped first year the first time around because I completed the International Baccalaureate program, and was given that privilege. Plus I challenged my way through most of the classes that I already knew the material for. In other words, I skipped all the intro classes.

My professor seems like a nice enough guy. A little self-deprecating, but on the whole I get the sense that he's quite a competent professor. He did say something severely problematic though.

"...I could give you an entire lecture on a cup of coffee. I could talk about all of the injustices that happened in order to bring your coffee here. But you shouldn't change behaviour because of analysis. Some of us still need coffee to function this early in the morning."

Okay... WHAT? He had just talked at length about Canadian First Nations apartheid, and how it creates social inequalities. But don't do anything about it. You still enjoy the privileges that this system gives you (if you are of another ethic group that is). He said that a doctor who identifies a product as causing cancer has no responsibility, and in fact cannot do anything about the fact that it is on the market and that the public is not aware of how harmful it can be. He directly said that you wouldn't be able to live your life if you go about things this way. If you challenge what your friends say, you will become very unpopular.

My view:

1. The doctor in his example has an ethical responsibility to take action
• Because of their claim to authority, this doctor has many tools available to them
• Conduct a scientific study
• Get the media interested
• Start an advocacy group
• Talk to existing advocacy groups
2. Individuals constitute society. If enough individuals change their views, this becomes subculture, and eventually it becomes de facto culture.
• If you have the privilege of being charismatic, you can cause change in many people
• You need to be the change you wish to see in the world
• What is generally an unpopular mode of interaction today (high degree of analysis) could become the social norm
3. My professor is advocating for the status quo. As a sociologist, he should know that social change happens, and that it happens because of people challenging the status quo. Every new idea does this.

My professor has managed to resurrect the beast that was my insatiable drive of my first time in post-secondary 5 years ago. He has an adversary. I will challenge this view of his using the tools that he supplies. I will do the course readings, I will do the suggested extra course readings, and I will go the the original texts that these are based on to further my understanding of the material vastly beyond what he will expect from a first-year student. And I will use it to challenge him publicly (in class) and privately (office hours). He will not enjoy it.

I will teach my teacher.