I don't think you can make yourself into a creative genius; although it is true that effort and discipline, as well as surpassing talent, is required to fulfill creative genius.

And I repeat again that in the scenario you will never know that you had not really made the efforts, you will have illusory memories of having made all the requisite efforts.

Or as Marchesk says you can experience actually going through making all the efforts, if that is what floats your boat.

In the optimal, tailored life of your own choosing, you can to do exactly that. In the real world, plenty of people would like to become a genius, rich or famous, but for one reason or another, can't or don't. — Marchesk

No actually they wouldn't really like that. They'd like to BE a rich man, a genius or a famous person. Why? Well because they have others liking them, they have others willing to be their slaves and tolerate their eccentricities, and so forth. They don't really wanna become such a person - that's too hard for them.

I don't think you can make yourself into a creative genius; although it is true that effort and discipline, as well as surpassing talent, is required to fulfill creative genius. — John

Sure you can... why do you think there were so many creative geniuses during the Renaissance compared to now? Because they had a good, strong and healthy culture which encouraged men to push themselves to their limits. Today we have a crooked progressive culture, which encourages people to have a high paying, and prestigious job, fuck around, and waste their time casting their shadows over the earth.

Nah, some few people have the natural or God-given talent and most others simply don't. I'm not denying that there are probably many great talents that are never fulfilled for various reasons, though.

Nah, some few people have the natural or God-given talent and most others simply don't — John

I don't buy this. Why then do we have so many geniuses during the Renaissance and so few today?

Well if one puts aside the problematic consequences of pressing the button and accept it simply as you describe it. Then a true physicalist would press the button immediately, provided they were able to overcome the distaste of the idea of the inauthenticity of being in a vat.

If they (the physicalist) came up with any other reason not to press it they are being disingenuous.

However I suspect there are other candidates for pressing it, some religious people, people who have a strong distaste for suffering, those with suicidal tendencies.

That's wrong, there are large numbers of geniuses and many more who if they were put back in time to the renaissance would be equivalent to geniuses. The difference is that standards and levels of achievement are so so much higher now. Let's take the example of art. There are many thousands of artists around who are skilled enough to paint the the standard of Leonardo da Vinci. But such abilities are not regarded as genius now, because many people can do it and the standard of what constitutes artistic genius has moved on to an intellectually exalted state.

Genius often only becomes apparent after a few centuries. Also our culture is so complex compared to Renaissance culture that the kind of universal genius of people like Leonardo and Goethe is virtually impossible today.

The other possibility is that there are many genuises today and that you do not possess the genius necessary to recognize them.
:P

That's wrong, there are large numbers of geniuses and many more who if they were put back in time to the renaissance would be equivalent to geniuses. The difference is that standards and levels of achievement as so so much higher now. Let's take the example of art. There are many thousands of artists around who are skilled enough to paint the the standard of Leonardo da Vinci. But such abilities are not regarded as genius now, because many people can do it and the standard of what constitutes artistic genius has moved on to an intellectually exalted state. — Punshhh

LOL! Why does no one paint a Mona Lisa today then? Why no one is writing Macbeth? Why are Macbeth and Mona Lisa widely admired still, and the many works of today's "genius" are forgotten the very next day?

Genius often only becomes apparent after a few centuries. Also our culture is so complex compared to Renaissance culture that the kind of universal genius of people like Leonardo and Goethe is virtually impossible today. — John

I disagree. I think universal genius is more possible today than ever. We have ample resources, everyone can learn anything by himself with just a computer and an internet connection. In Goethe's time... alas, poor Goethe. It was so hard for him to have access to great writings, and so difficult to grow his knowledge. The problem is today that they're too busy shadowing the earth as I said, than working. They smoke some dope, and they shag each other, and of course, with doing that, when's the time to be a genius left? In Heaven maybe!

The other possibility is that there are many genuises today and that you do not possess the genius necessary to recognize them. — John

Don't judge others after yourself >:)

the standard of what constitutes artistic genius has moved on to an intellectually exalted state. — Punshhh

By this principle, you should name me the not so great artist by today's standard, whose works are the equivalent of the Mona Lisa. I'm all ears. I also want to hear why his works are not revered, and the Mona Lisa is.

LOL! Why does no one paint a Mona Lisa today then? Why no one is writing Macbeth? Why are Macbeth and Mona Lisa widely admired still, and the many works of today's "genius" are forgotten the very next day? — Agustino

You ignored the possibility that you simply cannot recognize such genius. You are assuming that what your ignorance tells you is the case, is the case. There are so works of literature, art and music that you will never experience, and so many people in the world that you have never met and never will meet, that there could be an abundance of genius that you will never know about. You are aware of only the tiniest fraction of what is out there. Today there are conditions for many things to achieve momentary notoriety, but not for genius to find its due acknowledgement. Luck has a lot to do with it. Of all the artists who never 'make' it' it will be circumstantial luck as to what might be unearthed and recognized as a work of genius in the future. Perhaps only in science is genius adequately recognized today.

Perhaps only in science is genius adequately recognized today. — John

Alas, today we have no scientists of the rank of a Newton, or a Kepler, or a Galileo. Stephen Hawking, pff. Einstein was up there, but even he's gone now.

I tell you, our culture is at fault. We're too weak today. We cry about every little thing. Transexual bathrooms! That's the big problem of the world... People have lost their minds, they have no sense of perspective or historical time at all. We don't have people harboring the unrelenting passion of a Newton today. Who would lock themselves in their house for years to work on physics problems? No one! They'd go to a big research university, where they waste time and joke around with their colleagues, get married, have a family, and so forth. No one is willing to do the work. That's the problem. Otherwise we're good chaps.

Well John has said pretty much what I was going to say. I will add though that the Mona Lisa is not very well painted and only gained notoriety due to someone at sometime in the distant past pointing out that in the way her lips are painted it is debatable whether she is actually smiling, or straight faced.
I'm sure if I had been around just before the wheel was invented, I would have come up with the idea first. Surely a person who invented the wheel can be labelled a genius, what an amazing invention.

So says the arch-pontificator!

Maybe the paradigms are so complex today that there is no possibility of such radical shifts as those made by Newton, Kepler or Galileo. Or perhaps the non-scientist simply could not recognize such a shift, even if it had occurred.

Drivel. When you get something more interesting to say, please give me a call.

Maybe the paradigms are so complex today that there is no possibility of such radical shifts as those made by Newton, Kepler or Galileo. Or perhaps the non-scientist simply could not recognize such a shift, even if it had occurred. — John

Excuses are many. It's so complex - that's why we suck. It's the social pressures - that's why I'm smoking dope.

Smoking dope probably won't help diminish your delusions of grandeur.
:-}

But in the scenario your life is indistinguishable form your present life except that you are superlatively intelligent, a creative genius, a brilliant benefactor, as rich as you like, loved by everyone; all the things you could want.

And you are provided with all the memories of having made the efforts necessary to become the great person you are. — John

I'm guessing the comment of mine you're responding to is this:

The utilitarian could additionally believe that (i) achievements with personal effort required are much more valuable, and (ii) personal effort can't somehow be artificially induced or simulated. — Terrapin Station

Are you denying that (ii) is a view that a utilitarian could hold?

if you are a truth relativist you believe there is no ultimate truth, — John

Sure. But what does that have to do with whether I feel comfortable imposing something on others that they didn't request?

Drivel.

You said it.

Seriously though I think you should have been born in Italy during the Renaissance, you would have fitted right in in the world of the Medici's, you could have been Niccolò Machiavelli himself!

The thought experiment stipulates that people get to live their best imaginable lives. If that includes wanting to make efforts then they would receive just that.

If they wouldn't want to actually make the efforts but would find their "achievements" and abilities empty without believing they had made efforts to arrive at and develop them respectively then they would be given memories that would convince them of such.

Again, I'm guessing you're responding to this, but you're not actually answering the question I'm asking you;

The utilitarian could additionally believe that (i) achievements with personal effort required are much more valuable, and (ii) personal effort can't somehow be artificially induced or simulated.
— Terrapin Station

Are you denying that (ii) is a view that a utilitarian could hold? — Terrapin Station

First tell me what the relevance of the question is to the thought experiment. In the thought experiment we are considering a hypothetical situation in which personal effort can be artificially induced or simulated, so I don't see how an argument as to whether a utilitarian could or could not hold the position that personal effort cannot be artificially induced or simulated could be relevant.

It's relevant because it's about what a utilitarian must believe given the thought experiment. If a utilitarian believes that the thought experiment fails because it posits something that's either impossible in principle or incoherent, say, then it turns out that utilitarians do not at all have to believe what the person posing the thought experiment says they must believe. To said utilitarians, the thought experiment is irreparably flawed.

If a utilitarian doesn't want to answer the question because they don't accept the whole thought experiment, then there is nothing I can do about that. I am merely asserting what a utilitarian must do to be consistent with his or her principles if s/he does accept the thought experiment

It wouldn't be that they're not answering or not responding to it. it would be that they don't accept the assumptions being made about utilitarianism as well as the assumptions being made about what's possible with respect to brains in vats.

Nonsense; there are no assumptions, per se, being made about ultitarianism in the thought experiment. And it doesn't have to be a brain in vat; that is just an example of a conceivable infrastructure.

The question is, would utilitarians, in line with the belief that an ethical act is the one that brings maximum happiness or pleasure to the greatest number, act to give all humans their best imaginable lives if they could? If not, then why not?

Atheists use this very argument against the existence of an all powerful, all-knowing ethically good God. They say that if God could give humans their best imaginable lives then He should, and that since if He exists He can and since He doesn't, He either isn't ethical or He doesn't exist. They don't cavill over whether the humans in questions should have any choice in the matter of whether ro not they get to live the best imaginable lives.

there are no assumptions, per se, being made about ultitarianism in the thought experiment. — John

Sure there are. After all, it merely mentions utilitarianism, and then it suggests a conclusion about what utilitarians must believe. You can't come to a conclusion about it by just mentioning the word. You have to make some assumptions about what the stance is and what it implies in order to come to a conclusion about it with respect to the thought experiment.

No, they are not part of the thought experiment; I stated how I thought the avowed position of the consequentialist on the nature of what makes choices morally good would commit them to choosing is all.

If someone who thinks they are an ultilitarian wants to claim that, although they do believe the criteria that determines the moral imperative is to choose that act that maximizes the greatest good, conceived as either pleasure or happiness, for the greatest number, but that they would nonethless not press the button; then I would want to know why. But no avowed utilitarian has made that claim so far.

Wait, I thought that Patrick Grim said something about utilitarianism with respect to this, and that seemed to be the point of it.

maximizes the greatest good, conceived as either pleasure or happiness — John

A lot of utilitarians would say that good doesn't have to do with pleasure or happiness.