Two questions about hedonism

Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

I’d like to offer a general response here—perhaps even a universal formula for tackling any kind of "thought experiment."

1) First off, most of these experiments operate under the false assumption that there is a single "correct" or "objective" answer. But that’s just not how it works; within your own internal, subjective universe, the standard laws of logic don't necessarily apply! 😲
Because of that, any answer you give to these types of puzzles could be considered "right," which effectively makes the question itself pointless and a waste of breath.

It’s a bit like asking whether it is objectively "correct" to have one wife, four wives, or none at all, and then trying to analyze what actually happens in each scenario. You’ll quickly realize that every single answer just triggers a billion more questions, and this cycle of futility will continue until the end of time...
..................

2) Furthermore, these experiments often turn into little mental traps. No matter what choice you make, someone will find a way to nitpick your reasoning. It's essentially an attempt by a mind that doesn't even know its own nature—a mind that can't even grasp what it looked like before its grandparents were even born—to manufacture complex riddles. Meanwhile, that same mind can't even solve the fundamental mystery of WHO it is, what it actually is, how consciousness functions, or where it was located BEFORE consciousness existed.

3) In reality, all these experiments boil down to a classic Zen koan:
A goose is trapped inside a glass bottle. How do you get the goose out alive without breaking the bottle?🤔

====

If you want to solve this or any other thought experiment, you need to understand one thing:

The person posing these questions is usually driven by a restless, monkey-like mind and a nagging sense of existential discomfort. Since the mind doesn't understand its own essence, where thoughts come from, or the enigma of consciousness, it tries to distract itself. That inner restlessness—which could represent anything from suffering and ignorance to simple anxiety or insecurity—forces the mind to churn out all kinds of mental junk just to keep itself busy.

Ultimately, tasks like these are just colorful, distracting clutter. They should be cleared away, and perhaps the person posting them should be met with a metaphorical lash of the whip 🙂... or, in the context of this forum, simply a moderator stepping in to lock the thread.

hiddenpuma75 said:I’d like to offer a general response here—perhaps even a universal formula for tackling any kind of "thought experiment."

1) First off, most of these experiments operate under the false assumption that there is a single "correct" or "objective" answer. But that’s just not how it works; within your own internal, subjective universe, the standard laws of logic don't necessarily apply! 😲
Because of that, any answer you give to these types of puzzles could be considered "right," which effectively makes the question itself pointless and a waste of breath.

It’s a bit like asking whether it is objectively "correct" to have one wife, four wives, or none at all, and then trying to analyze what actually happens in each scenario. You’ll quickly realize that every single answer just triggers a billion more questions, and this cycle of futility will continue until the end of time...
..................

2) Furthermore, these experiments often turn into little mental traps. No matter what choice you make, someone will find a way to nitpick your reasoning. It's essentially an attempt by a mind that doesn't even know its own nature—a mind that can't even grasp what it looked like before its grandparents were even born—to manufacture complex riddles. Meanwhile, that same mind can't even solve the fundamental mystery of WHO it is, what it actually is, how consciousness functions, or where it was located BEFORE consciousness existed.

3) In reality, all these experiments boil down to a classic Zen koan:
A goose is trapped inside a glass bottle. How do you get the goose out alive without breaking the bottle?🤔

====

If you want to solve this or any other thought experiment, you need to understand one thing:

The person posing these questions is usually driven by a restless, monkey-like mind and a nagging sense of existential discomfort. Since the mind doesn't understand its own essence, where thoughts come from, or the enigma of consciousness, it tries to distract itself. That inner restlessness—which could represent anything from suffering and ignorance to simple anxiety or insecurity—forces the mind to churn out all kinds of mental junk just to keep itself busy.

Ultimately, tasks like these are just colorful, distracting clutter. They should be cleared away, and perhaps the person posting them should be met with a metaphorical lash of the whip 🙂... or, in the context of this forum, simply a moderator stepping in to lock the thread.

I don't know what these experiments think they're doing, but I don't believe an "objective" or "correct" answer exists either. And because of that, you're saying these questions are just a waste of time?

2) Secondly, these experiments act like mental traps. No matter what you pick, you'll get attacked from some angle. It's basically a mind that doesn't even know what it is, or what it looked like before its grandparents were even born, trying to invent puzzles. Meanwhile, the mind can't even solve the basic mystery of WHO it is, what it actually is, how it's conscious, or what it's conscious of—let alone where it was BEFORE consciousness existed.

What does any of this have to do with anything?

3) All these experiments eventually boil down to that famous Zen koan:
A goose is stuck inside a glass bottle. How do you get the goose out alive without breaking the bottle?🤔

How do they boil down to that?

To solve this or any other thought experiment, you have to understand one thing:

The thing driving these questions is just a restless, monkey-like mind and a bug in your pants. Since the mind doesn't know what it is, where thoughts come from, or the riddle of consciousness, but that bug in your pants keeps itching, the mind starts churning out all kinds of mental garbage just to distract itself from the discomfort. (And that bug in the pants represents a lot of things... suffering, ignorance, restlessness, anxiety...)

Basically, these kinds of tasks are just colorful, harmful junk. They should be cleared away, and maybe the person posting them should be threatened with ten lashes of a whip 🙂... or, more realistically on a forum, a ban or having the thread locked....

🙂

ruggedbadger2 said:Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

No. Honestly, I’d find more satisfaction in turning it down.

ruggedbadger2 said:Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

Ending someone's life isn't something you want to do.
If I actually found myself in this hypothetical mess...
I’d let the train hit the person in the pod. The guy tied up clearly didn't have a choice in being on those tracks, whereas the person in the pod chose to get in. And besides, if I don't touch the lever, I'm technically doing nothing. The person in the pod just had bad luck regarding where that lever was positioned.
For my part, I'll take what little peace of mind I can get. The person in the pod won't even know they died (if they made it to Paradise)... and if they ended up in Hell, well, at least they'll go with pleasant memories. Meanwhile, the person tied down knows they survived... and that's its own kind of relief.

ruggedbadger2 said:Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

Hedonism just isn't part of the human blueprint. No actual human being is wired to chase some ultimate, static state of pure pleasure. You see this reflected in psychoanalysis too. It’s similar to that old debate about whether you’d rather have the destination or the journey itself. Hedonism doesn't offer any real progress for humanity. I don't see any way to leverage it to build a community or true social cohesion. To me, hedonism feels incredibly selfish—it sits right at the bottom tier of human needs. Through his experiment, Nozick proved that people aren't just looking for a hit of dopamine; they want to actually live through the process. If we were all plugged into a machine that pumped out nothing but bliss, we’d get the sensation of satisfaction without anything else. And because we wouldn't be aware of what reality actually looks like, we'd be trapped in a bubble... which is the last thing any of us really wants.
Thanks, but I'll pass on the machine. 🙂

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:Hedonism just isn't part of the human blueprint. No actual human being is wired to chase some ultimate, static state of pure pleasure. You see this reflected in psychoanalysis too. It’s similar to that old debate about whether you’d rather have the destination or the journey itself. Hedonism doesn't offer any real progress for humanity. I don't see any way to leverage it to build a community or true social cohesion. To me, hedonism feels incredibly selfish—it sits right at the bottom tier of human needs. Through his experiment, Nozick proved that people aren't just looking for a hit of dopamine; they want to actually live through the process. If we were all plugged into a machine that pumped out nothing but bliss, we’d get the sensation of satisfaction without anything else. And because we wouldn't be aware of what reality actually looks like, we'd be trapped in a bubble... which is the last thing any of us really wants.
Thanks, but I'll pass on the machine. 🙂

Who fuckin' cares? It was stated that one only experiences "the final sensation of pleasure and nothing else."
If you don't feel the limitation, who cares if it exists?

Now, the scenario doesn't specify if you're stuck in that pod (lol) forever or just for a stint before walking back out to face the consequences. If it's temporary, I see the point. If it's for life... then I don't.
Nozick could have easily used "drugs" instead of a "machine" for his example.

People are already drowning in cognitive biases, believing whatever suits them. There's no fixing that today. Any optimistic view of "humanity" or "progress" seems incredibly naive to me. Everything will eventually burn out anyway...

I’m going to drop the link to this absolutely brilliant website once again.

steeleagle77 said:Who fuckin' cares? It was stated that one only experiences "the final sensation of pleasure and nothing else."
If you don't feel the limitation, who cares if it exists?

Now, the scenario doesn't specify if you're stuck in that pod (lol) forever or just for a stint before walking back out to face the consequences. If it's temporary, I see the point. If it's for life... then I don't.
Nozick could have easily used "drugs" instead of a "machine" for his example.

People are already drowning in cognitive biases, believing whatever suits them. There's no fixing that today. Any optimistic view of "humanity" or "progress" seems incredibly naive to me. Everything will eventually burn out anyway...

If I recall correctly, according to Nozick, the person stays in the pod for their whole life.

That last paragraph is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. I'm not sure how you pulled some optimistic or transhumanist stance from this experiment? The guy was trying to debunk hedonism by explaining why most people wouldn't step into the pod in the first place.

hiddeneagle98 said:I’m going to drop the link to this absolutely brilliant website once again.

This site is pretty fascinating. I’m planning on sitting down and reading through the whole thing eventually. I stumbled upon it a few weeks ago, and I find myself thinking about it whenever there's news about CRISPR or similar tech.

ruggedbadger2 said:If I recall correctly, according to Nozick, the person stays in the pod for their whole life.

That last paragraph is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. I'm not sure how you pulled some optimistic or transhumanist stance from this experiment? The guy was trying to debunk hedonism by explaining why most people wouldn't step into the pod in the first place.

I was actually responding to Jeffrey Ramos4's point about "reality, limitations, and progress."

It reminds me of my own mindset about a decade ago, when I was naively obsessed with the idea of "purity and progress"... 🙂

edit
but then I watched 🤣Dr. Strangelove
...

Sure, there’s always that risk of someone showing up obsessed with protecting "precious bodily fluids." 😁

For what it's worth, I don't agree with Jeffrey Ramos4 either. Back in high school, I remember hearing about this study where they put a male butterfly in front of one real female and one paper cutout of a female that was twice the size. Naturally, the butterfly went straight for the fake one. I guess it's a similar deal with people. I think the boost you get from pleasure and positive emotions actually improves survival chances, so those things are just universally desirable to humans. I don't buy the idea that hedonism isn't part of our nature or that people aren't fundamentally driven to seek out satisfaction...

ruggedbadger2 said:Sure, there’s always that risk of someone showing up obsessed with protecting "precious bodily fluids." 😁

For what it's worth, I don't agree with Jeffrey Ramos4 either. Back in high school, I remember hearing about this study where they put a male butterfly in front of one real female and one paper cutout of a female that was twice the size. Naturally, the butterfly went straight for the fake one. I guess it's a similar deal with people. I think the boost you get from pleasure and positive emotions actually improves survival chances, so those things are just universally desirable to humans. I don't buy the idea that hedonism isn't part of our nature or that people aren't fundamentally driven to seek out satisfaction...

That's generally how it works,
but how do you account for the people who choose to retreat to a monastery for life, or spend their entire existence standing with their hands in the air just to reach enlightenment?

The folks over at that monastery definitely believe in an afterlife. Because of that, they dedicate their lives on Earth to religion just to boost their odds of making it into heaven and hitting that ultimate bliss. So, at the end of the day, it’s still just a pursuit of pleasure, even if it has nothing to do with individual or species survival. As for those people with their hands in the air—honestly, I'm not sure who you mean—they probably don't actually want enlightenment. If they did, it would be a negative thing for them. Enlightenment means eliminating desire, and since they see their current state of craving or dukkha as something negative, trying to get rid of it becomes a positive, maybe even hedonistic, goal for them.

I mean, I'm sure the reality is way more complicated than my summary here, but this is the only way I can make sense of these behaviors through the lens of seeking satisfaction. It's a good question, though.

There's also the whole Epicureanism angle to consider, which is pretty fascinating if you think about it.

Have you ever read Michel Onfray? From what I gather, he’s basically the most prominent Epicurean alive right now. I haven't actually sat down with his work yet, but based on that description, I guess he sounds pretty interesting.

ruggedbadger2 said:The folks over at that monastery definitely believe in an afterlife. Because of that, they dedicate their lives on Earth to religion just to boost their odds of making it into heaven and hitting that ultimate bliss. So, at the end of the day, it’s still just a pursuit of pleasure, even if it has nothing to do with individual or species survival. As for those people with their hands in the air—honestly, I'm not sure who you mean—they probably don't actually want enlightenment. If they did, it would be a negative thing for them. Enlightenment means eliminating desire, and since they see their current state of craving or dukkha as something negative, trying to get rid of it becomes a positive, maybe even hedonistic, goal for them.

I mean, I'm sure the reality is way more complicated than my summary here, but this is the only way I can make sense of these behaviors through the lens of seeking satisfaction. It's a good question, though.

You got any other goals worth chasing besides just pure pleasure?

ruggedraven36 said:You got any other goals worth chasing besides just pure pleasure?

Are you implying there's a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction?

steeleagle77 said:Are you implying there's a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction?

Look, there are plenty of different goals. Half the time we don't even know if they’ll actually make us feel good—if we even bother to think about it. Satisfaction is usually just a side effect—it's rarely the main event itself.

Interesting. While that isn't how I operate, one could more or less agree with this...
For me, every goal I pursue is driven by a desire for satisfaction. It’s fascinating how little people realize their own pursuit of personal gratification when they're fighting for some "sacred" cause. ruggedbadger2 already pointed out an example involving those nuns...

steeleagle77 said:Interesting. While that isn't how I operate, one could more or less agree with this...
For me, every goal I pursue is driven by a desire for satisfaction. It’s fascinating how little people realize their own pursuit of personal gratification when they're fighting for some "sacred" cause. ruggedbadger2 already pointed out an example involving those nuns...

Sure, people have all kinds of motivations, and even more kinds of people. You only have to look at history to see how priorities shift—what people were willing to die for a century ago doesn't carry much weight today, and vice versa. At the end of the day, seeking satisfaction is a universal driver, but it's entirely relative. Just stating that humans generally chase gratification isn't some deep ethical revelation; it's just a fact of life.