I'm not doing this, it's not even related to the thought experiment. — Darkneos

Sure it is. Weren't you taking about chemicals? You just assume those chemicals exist, right? Maybe don't assume that.

I don't think the evidence shows that at all. Quite the contrary. My own experience has also showed me this: years ago, I experimented for a while with MDMA. The following day or two I would be horribly depressed, almost inconsolable. — Janus

I actually does, especially since it suggests that SSRI's aren't really well understood. I used to be on them and they didn't really make a difference other than making me feel flat.

Your friend sounds like they got lucky.

Sure it is. Weren't you taking about chemicals? You just assume those chemicals exist, right? Maybe don't assume that. — RogueAI

They do exist, that's why I said I'm not doing this.

Okay, then perhaps try legal microdosing with psilocybin or cannabis if available. Or cognitive behavior therapy. I don't know what else to suggest. There may be other solutions, I'm no expert. Dwelling on these kinds of thoughts will only reinforce the cycle and exacerbate the problem it seems to me.

Matter doesn't exist. This is all an elaborate dream. — RogueAI

:roll:

I guess you didn't get the memo, Rogue: There are no antirealists (immaterialists, disembodied minds, etc) in foxholes.

On the one hand you are saying it's all just chemicals and yet on the other you say that these thoughts about it all being chemicals are not due to chemicals but are "logical conclusions". Do you not see that you are contradicting yourself? — Janus

:up: :up:

Okay, then perhaps try legal microdosing with psilocybin or cannabis if available. Or cognitive behavior therapy. I don't know what else to suggest. There may be other solutions, I'm no expert. Dwelling on these kinds of thoughts will only reinforce the cycle and exacerbate the problem it seems to me. — Janus

I'm aware of that, but it's not like I can stop the thoughts. Also microdosing isn't possible where I live. Cannabis did nothing for me but make me sleepy though.

We also have made progress on the hard problem, at least from the research I've seen. — Darkneos

Can you give any links, or names of researchers?

I guess you didn't get the memo, Rogue: There are no antirealists (immaterialists, disembodied minds, etc) in foxholes. — 180 Proof

I mean I got two ends of the spectrum, one who says it's all chemicals and that mind just projects "fiction" (even though without that "fiction" you'd never know it was all chemicals) and someone who thinks matter isn't real.

It's an odd collection to be sure.

Can you give any links, or names of researchers? — Patterner

I know susan blackmoor is one person along with Anil Seth and Thomas Metzinger, Daniel Denett as well. I've read random stuff that show the hard problem isn't a hard problem

Though thinking about it I guess our storytelling does give meaning to the chemicals and gives them the context to do what they do, and the stories we tell can affect what chemicals are released.

So maybe it's not entirely chemicals, I mean...isn't the notion that it's all chemicals also just a story well tell to make sense of things?

I know susan blackmoor is one person along with Anil Seth and Thomas Metzinger, Daniel Denett as well. I've read random stuff that show the hard problem isn't a hard problem — Darkneos

Please explain how it works. I have yet to read anything that explains how physical processes give rise to subjective experience.

Please explain how it works. I have yet to read anything that explains how physical processes give rise to subjective experience. — Patterner

You can look them up to get a picture of it. Though Blackmoor suggests consciousness is an illusion.

How does it not engage? I'm not sure what you mean.

Indeed. Our knowing it was machine-induced, if that was the case, or even if we thought that was the case, would become part of the experience.

But that's not necessarily bad. I'm told there are amazing VR things out there. I have only experienced one brief thing in a mall. I was a bird flying way above some mountains. It wasn't high quality VR. It was just a drawing, although a very nice one. Anyway, I knew I was not a bird, and that I was in VR. It was still a great experience. Except for getting slightly nausea. I knew if was VR, and it looked like a drawing. And yet, my stomach turned at a rather tame aerial maneuver. Despite the discomfort, it was amazing that that happened to me. — Patterner

My point was that eventually the experience would be unsatisfying and would not be the same experience even if every if it was an exact replica of existence.

Would I reply on a message board that was made up of AI bots and not some other humans? The replies would be probably more challenging and would would be perfectly tailored to my wants and needs but ultimately it would be unsatisfying as there is no connection. I have no idea if anyone on here is "real" but I'm convinced you are.
Then again, evolution has made us very adaptable so within a week the machine may be our new reality.

It’s more like wondering if all that is meaningful is just chemical signal and therefor nothing special. Hobbies, relationships, all that. I’ve stopped feeling joy because of it, I think that if I do something I like it means I value joy and pleasure and would have to accept the experience machine and plug in. — Darkneos

Is that true? That is a convoluted way to look at your existence.

How does it not engage? I'm not sure what you mean. — Malcolm Parry

No I can’t imagine you would but I explained already.

Would I reply on a message board that was made up of AI bots and not some other humans? The replies would be probably more challenging and would would be perfectly tailored to my wants and needs but ultimately it would be unsatisfying as there is no connection. I have no idea if anyone on here is "real" but I'm convinced you are.
Then again, evolution has made us very adaptable so within a week the machine may be our new reality. — Malcolm Parry

Not really, and also not what is being said. AI was a different thread, not the experience machine. Though you assume AI will be tailored to your wants and not eventually beyond your reasoning ability.

And evolution sorta made us adaptable, humans don’t really like change so we’re sorta adaptable creatures. But so far studies show no one would plug in to the machine.

Anyway…your reply is still irrelevant to the main point and isn’t engaging with the thought experiment

Is that true? That is a convoluted way to look at your existence. — Malcolm Parry

Why would I lie about that? Engage with what is being said. Why is it convoluted?

I understand why you don’t feel joy. Carry on.

your reply is still irrelevant to the main point — Darkneos

No, it's not.

"and isn’t engaging with the thought experiment

Yes, it is.

I understand why you don’t feel joy. Carry on. — Malcolm Parry

I don’t think you do, nor did you engage with my point.

No, it's not. — RogueAI

It is, the thought experiment has nothing to do with whether you think matter exists or not. Heck that was converted in the IEP link.

The idea does bug me, the thought that if it's all just chemicals then there would be no real reason to not plug into it. What difference is there if we can just replicate everything? — Darkneos

The same roundabout question can be asked in alternative means, such as: Would you willingly undergo a lobotomy knowing that the lobotomy will make you perpetually pleased with all aspects of life in general, this irrespective of what might happen to you, even if the lobotomy entails you becoming generally oblivious via the operation?

I’ll make the following hypothesis: The reason we wouldn’t willingly lobotomize ourselves or else place ourselves into a perpetual “experience machine” (were the latter possible) for the sake of obtaining optimal pleasure or happiness has a lot to do with our inherent nature – even if we’re not consciously aware of it – specifically, an inherent nature where we (or at least a majority of us) value reality, thereby that which is in fact actual, and conformity to such, thereby truth, above all else.

Why then would we so value reality and, hence, truth? Maybe because we tacitly (if not also unconsciously) know with dire – although unspoken – conviction that only reality and truth thus understood can bring about our optimal happiness and wellbeing, aka our optimal eudemonia - such that here our eudemonia is not false, illusory, and thereby eventually results in our unwanted pains and suffering. And this unspoken desire then reigns supreme in our multitude of desires irrespective of the obstacles and strifes that might dwell on the way to approaching this pristine reality and one’s conformity to, ultimately maybe unity with, it.

I grant that this hypothesis is not easy to logically establish. That it in many a way transcends the convictions of physicalism - which, after all, gives little if any understanding of the reality of meaning itself. And that many, in in fact holding this very desire, prefer to consciously give up on it rather than endure the unpleasantries of living with this desire perpetually unfulfilled. Thereby arriving at affirmed conclusions such as that there is no meaning to anything: something which can pacify an otherwise unfulfilled desire and what might best be described as the suffering associated with this lack of fulfillment.

That said, were this offered hypothesis to be more accurate than not, then of course we would not choose to lobotomize ourselves, or else permanently plug into an experience machine, for so doing would remove us from closer proximity to a better grasping of this very nature of reality, of what is in fact actual … this being where, given the addressed hypothesis, the only genuine form of optimal eudemonia can be found – an optimal eudemonia that, again, is in large part constituted of optimal understanding (and hence meaning) regarding that which is real and true.

-----

I won’t endeavor to here “prove” this proposed hypothesis: it’s by no means something easy to do, and most certainly impossible in soundbite forum form. Nevertheless, the hypothesis does answer the question of why we (typically) don’t do things such as desire to lobotomize ourselves or else enter the unrealities of an experience machine – this irrespective of the prospective pleasures such might promise and possibly accomplish.

I should add that, in the absence of this hypothesis, I have not answer to give for why one ought not, for one example, lobotomize oneself, or else choose to perpetually remain in a virtual reality.

I won’t endeavor to here “prove” this proposed hypothesis: it’s by no means something easy to do, and most certainly impossible in soundbite forum form. Nevertheless, the hypothesis does answer the question of why we (typically) don’t do things such as desire to lobotomize ourselves or else enter the unrealities of an experience machine – this irrespective of the prospective pleasures such might promise and possibly accomplish.

I should add that, in the absence of this hypothesis, I have not answer to give for why one ought not, for one example, lobotomize oneself, or else choose to perpetually remain in a virtual reality. — javra

Part of me also just likes the unpredictability of reality and how we don't always get what we want. I dunno if you can just reduce it all down to just chemicals given how we are social animals and the stories we tell impact us and said chemicals. I mean mindset is a pretty big thing when it comes to well-being and some people can be depressed but have fine brain chemistry. We are complex beings.

Though maybe the value of life isn't something we can measure with words...

Then again, evolution has made us very adaptable so within a week the machine may be our new reality. — Malcolm Parry

This may be right. But maybe not. By and large, humans like interacting with other humans. No matter how human a machine seems, knowing that it's a machine, I don't know if I'd bother.

This may be right. But maybe not. By and large, humans like interacting with other humans. No matter how human a machine seems, knowing that it's a machine, I don't know if I'd bother. — Patterner

We are hardwired to like interacting. It ensures a higher likelihood of out genes being passed down.

However, the modern world has disconnected from the hunter gatherer scenario we evolved into. Some gamers and young people spend most of their time in a virtual world. they might swap reality of interacting with "people" with an augmented world that reacts with "people".

100% not for me

We are hardwired to like interacting. It ensures a higher likelihood of out genes being passed down. — Malcolm Parry

That's not really true, it's just that we are social animals, that's all.

However, the modern world has disconnected from the hunter gatherer scenario we evolved into. Some gamers and young people spend most of their time in a virtual world. they might swap reality of interacting with "people" with an augmented world that reacts with "people". — Malcolm Parry

They do that because they don't really have much else. If it were easier they would choose real people.

It's also stupid to think mind and nature are separate when mind is part of nature, it doesn't exist outside of it. — Darkneos

I assume you would hold that rocketships, skyscrapers, leprechauns and unicorns are part of nature?

Nature doesn't give a damn last I checked. — Darkneos

If Mind is part of Nature, it does.
But I agree, Nature doesn't give a damn, a damn and the giving of it belongs to Mind.

I told you that meaning making is the only reason you can type such things and have them understood. — Darkneos

That's my point. Meaning making is the only reason...etc. Meaning is made, not pre-existent. Fabricated, not discovered or disclosed.

The chemicals are just fine as they are. Only for Meaning makers are the questions begged. And ultimately, both questions and answers are illusions.

You never really draw complete thoughts out. — Darkneos

It's questions all the way down. Especially in a forum like this. I'm neither energetic nor presumptuous enough to provide what would be required to close a thought. Do you think there are thoughts completed anywhere? I don't.

I’ll make the following hypothesis: The reason we wouldn’t willingly lobotomize ourselves or else place ourselves into a perpetual “experience machine” (were the latter possible) for the sake of obtaining optimal pleasure or happiness has a lot to do with our inherent nature – even if we’re not consciously aware of it – specifically, an inherent nature where we (or at least a majority of us) value reality, thereby that which is in fact actual, and conformity to such, thereby truth, above all else. — javra

I would hypothesize that it's, rather, because of our attachment to the Narrative we've built, and the "I" which takes center stage; both of which are illusions we are strongly but fallaciously attached to.

I assume you would hold that rocketships, skyscrapers, leprechauns and unicorns are part of nature? — ENOAH

In some sense, yes. You seem to have a very...limited view of what nature is. Mind is part of nature after all.

If Mind is part of Nature, it does.
But I agree, Nature doesn't give a damn, a damn and the giving of it belongs to Mind. — ENOAH

If was assume nature is some godlike entity. If by nature we mean the entire planet then no it doesn't, but animals seem to care and so do we.

That's my point. Meaning making is the only reason...etc. Meaning is made, not pre-existent. Fabricated, not discovered or disclosed.

The chemicals are just fine as they are. Only for Meaning makers are the questions begged. And ultimately, both questions and answers are illusions. — ENOAH

So what if meaning is made? Like I said, if we didn't do that you wouldn't be on here communicating to me. You wouldn't even know about chemicals. The questions aren't begged for the meaning makers and questions and answers aren't illusions (illusions of what anyway?). It sounds like you have a limited view of reality.

It's questions all the way down. Especially in a forum like this. I'm neither energetic nor presumptuous enough to provide what would be required to close a thought. Do you think there are thoughts completed anywhere? I don't. — ENOAH

There are, despite your efforts to appear otherwise. All you've reality shown is a limited and naive view of reality.

I would hypothesize that it's, rather, because of our attachment to the Narrative we've built, and the "I" which takes center stage; both of which are illusions we are strongly but fallaciously attached to. — ENOAH

I truly don't think you understand the "I", let alone what illusion means or is. This sounds like you have a hammer and everything else is a nail. You can't even see how every statement you made isn't only contradictory but also wrong. You are a meaning maker whether you accept it or not, everything you've said is a story, a narrative.

The idea does bug me, the thought that if it's all just chemicals then there would be no real reason to not plug into it. What difference is there if we can just replicate everything? — Darkneos

And:

If everything we take to be meaningful is just the result of chemicals that can be replicated then there is nothing special about what we take to be meaningful. Treasured relationships can be replaced with a machine that just gives you the chemical rewards that having them would, it would render everyone, every thing, and every experience replaceable via a machine that can do the same. — Darkneos

From the above, your argument seems to be something like the following formalization:

(1) If something can be physically replicated in the brain, then that thing is not special.
(2) Chemical compositions can be physically replicated in the brain.
(3) Meaningful experiences are just chemical compositions.
(4) Thus, meaningful experiences are not special (from 1-3)
(5) If meaningful experiences are not special, then one has no reason to not plug into the experience machine.
(6) Thus, one has no reason to not plug into the experience machine (from 4 & 5).

Please correct any inaccuracy. Anyway, I think this is a valid argument, but ultimately I'm skeptical that it is sound. Here are two worries, targeting (1) and (3) in particular:

Aboutness. Meaningful experiences tend to be about something else. For instance, meaningful bonds seem to refer to some other being, place or object. There is an accuracy condition due to this aboutness. My love for my dog is about that existing being, and without that being existing, as it is in the case of living inside the experience machine, my love is not accurate, because the being my love refers to does not exist. If this is correct, it seems like our meaningful experiences are either more than chemical compositions, or chemical compositions can be about something else, and then there is a potential reason to opt out of a life in the experience machine.

Self-defeat. The underlying assumptions of the argument risks striking too widely. Our beliefs, justifications, reasoning, use of logic, would arguably from this perspective be chemical compositions in the brain as well. Yet, they seem to have an accuracy condition, like the one mentioned above. One can accept this accuracy condition as an emergent property of chemical compositions, but then that leaves one with a tension: Why could not meaningful experiences have this accuracy condition if other chemical compositions can? If one rather denies the accuracy condition for reasoning as well, it seems to leave us in self-defeat. Our reasoning could be manipulated to make us think anything is the case so it is not special, it does not matter if it is accurate or not, thus risking to undermine almost all of our thinking, and even the argument itself.

Aboutness. Meaningful experiences tend to be about something else. For instance, meaningful bonds seem to refer to some other being, place or object. There is an accuracy condition due to this aboutness. My love for my dog is about that existing being, and without that being existing, as it is in the case of living inside the experience machine, my love is not accurate, because the being my love refers to does not exist. If this is correct, it seems like our meaningful experiences are either more than chemical compositions, or chemical compositions can be about something else, and then there is a potential reason to opt out of a life in the experience machine. — GazingGecko

Meaningful experiences don't tend to be about something else, it only seems that way due to the chemicals in us. You don't actually have love for your dog or anyone else, that's only the chemical flashes happening. Your love is already not accurate. Even so it would not be a reason to opt out of the machine since the sensation would be the same.

Self-defeat. The underlying assumptions of the argument risks striking too widely. Our beliefs, justifications, reasoning, use of logic, would arguably from this perspective be chemical compositions in the brain as well. Yet, they seem to have an accuracy condition, like the one mentioned above. One can accept this accuracy condition as an emergent property of chemical compositions, but then that leaves one with a tension: Why could not meaningful experiences have this accuracy condition if other chemical compositions can? If one rather denies the accuracy condition for reasoning as well, it seems to leave us in self-defeat. Our reasoning could be manipulated to make us think anything is the case so it is not special, it does not matter if it is accurate or not, thus risking to undermine almost all of our thinking, and even the argument itself. — GazingGecko

It's not striking widely, it's referring to pleasure which appears to be the main motivation behind us doing anything. And if that good feeling can be replicated there is no reason to partake in life.

Thinking that it has anything to do with beliefs or reasoning is a strawman and dodging the question. Even if we did grant your point it would only serve to reinforce the argument, not undermine it. Also no one is talking about accuracy here.

So in the end neither of the two points really defeat the argument, merely avoid it.

It’s not so much a question of meaning more like if the feelings are due to chemicals there is no reason to seek the experience and you can just plug in. So your argument isn’t quite right.

I don’t honestly want to be right about this and would rather believe that it’s more than just that and that life is wonderful and rich. But to do that would be to deny reality so it seems like either choosing blissful ignorance or cold reality. We humans are pretty good storytellers so maybe we just made it out to be more than it really is.

So far humanists and atheists if asked about this can only seem to dodge the question and implications of their system, never really reckoning with what they mean.