Orwell v's Huxley

[Cainad (dec.)]

In that way, I think the "conspiracy" or whatever are very similar to the theme of the Spiders. The difference is that the BNW are working with more advanced technology and have tried to eliminate things like stress and anxiety from the equation by providing for our appetites.

The Spiders, on the other hand, rely on our stress and anxiety to help fan the flames of our appetites, to make us work harder towards very base desires (the need to feel safe, secure, and fed, etc).

[Jenne]

AW FUCK.  Now I need to RE-read BOTH of these to be up on a minutiae discussion of this calibre. I graduated from high school in 1990, so the required reading for AP English was some fucking time ago.  BUT (b-u-t-t!), I thank you all for that reminder.  Because although I think I identify more with Huxley's overall message, I think Orwell more or less just scarred me for life.

[Jenne]

In that way, I think the "conspiracy" or whatever are very similar to the theme of the Spiders. The difference is that the BNW are working with more advanced technology and have tried to eliminate things like stress and anxiety from the equation by providing for our appetites.

The Spiders, on the other hand, rely on our stress and anxiety to help fan the flames of our appetites, to make us work harder towards very base desires (the need to feel safe, secure, and fed, etc).

Methinks HUXLEY would've understood the concept of these ol' Spiders...

[Triple Zero]

BNW gives me warm fuzzies.
what's to fear in a setup like that if everyone is happy and the system is sustainable and works?

I mean, we're steeped in the fiercely individualistic society, but the freedom is only a means to an end, namely, happiness, right?  and iff that end can be reached without freedom, then why not?

In philosophy of ethics class, we learned that "norms" [aka decision procedure to determine whether something is "good"] usually are based on "values" [things that are intrinsically good, and therefore to be sought to attain].

Then we learned that the two most basic values that most [if not all] people agree upon are "happiness" and "freedom". Not just one or the other, but both.

Okay, so far this is just me saying that's what I was taught. One philosophical argument that tries to show why just happiness (hedonism) is not sufficient is the thought experiment of the Experience Machine, which you probably heard about [it's kinda matrix-y], but it still pays to carefully read through the reasoning and try to understand it [even if you don't agree].

Personally, I do not believe that just happiness is sufficient as the single value to strive for. It's a good one, but the hedonistic solution where everybody is drugged up just doesn't feel right. I think perhaps the Experience Machine is a slightly too extreme example to demonstrate it, though. It comes across somewhat far-fetched and therefore not entirely convincing, some simpler example might be better. And the corresponding value to complete the system might not exactly be "freedom" [but still something very much like it--creativity/originality/innovation perhaps], and I'm not sure, it'd require a lot of reasoning to test out hypotheses, and I'm not a philosopher.

[Placid Dingo]

BNW gives me warm fuzzies.
what's to fear in a setup like that if everyone is happy and the system is sustainable and works?

I mean, we're steeped in the fiercely individualistic society, but the freedom is only a means to an end, namely, happiness, right?  and iff that end can be reached without freedom, then why not?

In philosophy of ethics class, we learned that "norms" [aka decision procedure to determine whether something is "good"] usually are based on "values" [things that are intrinsically good, and therefore to be sought to attain].

Then we learned that the two most basic values that most [if not all] people agree upon are "happiness" and "freedom". Not just one or the other, but both.

Okay, so far this is just me saying that's what I was taught. One philosophical argument that tries to show why just happiness (hedonism) is not sufficient is the thought experiment of the Experience Machine, which you probably heard about [it's kinda matrix-y], but it still pays to carefully read through the reasoning and try to understand it [even if you don't agree].

Personally, I do not believe that just happiness is sufficient as the single value to strive for. It's a good one, but the hedonistic solution where everybody is drugged up just doesn't feel right. I think perhaps the Experience Machine is a slightly too extreme example to demonstrate it, though. It comes across somewhat far-fetched and therefore not entirely convincing, some simpler example might be better. And the corresponding value to complete the system might not exactly be "freedom" [but still something very much like it--creativity/originality/innovation perhaps], and I'm not sure, it'd require a lot of reasoning to test out hypotheses, and I'm not a philosopher.

I'm fairly sure I'd be completely fucking miserable in that world, or that machine. I saw a 'win the lotto add just half an hour ago, with people skiing through trees and I can't imagine anything more tedious than a carefree and joyful life. I like experience, and sensation and music and art; and in none of those fields do I want exclusive pleasantness. I value a piece of music like Zappas 'Weasels Ripped My Flesh' BECAUSE its a grating horrible drawn out shrieking sound, and I... 'enjoy' isn't right, but I value the experience of a break up, an injury, a car accident for the same reason I value falling in love, an adrenalin kick, a night out drinking; because they are real and are experiences which widen my world, which add depth to my narrative, which define the world I live in as not just pleasing, but harsh and sharp and scary and exciting.

Those beans in Harry Potter are a great example. Any number of shops would sell beans that taste nice, but the mix of horrible and delicious flavours lends value to the experience of eating; that thrill of uncertainty and risk that a hedonistic 'utopia' can't offer.

[Elder Iptuous]

the counter argument given on the wiki page for the experience machine seems cogent to me.
have you heard a refutation to this counterargument?

given the three reasons that are presented as to why we would not want to be plugged into the machine:

1. We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them
          * "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them." (Nozick, 43)
   2. We want to be a certain sort of person
          * "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob." (Nozick, 43)
   3. Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make)
          * "There is no actual contact with any deeper reality, though the experience of it can be simulated." (Nozick, 43)

We are only shown the shortcomings of the thought experiment.
if the machine were able to convince us that we were actually doing the actions, being some sort of person, and hide the synthetic nature of it, then those reasons would vanish.  the initial choice of whether to engage would not be an obvious yes for the reasons given by Elliot Sober, but once inserted the subject would be satisfied.  (which leads to an interesting question of whether an altruistic hedonist would be justified in forcing or tricking others into the machine...)  If the machine could not convince us of these points, then it would not be able to present the unlimited pleasure that it purports to.

Bringing it back to the real world, then, why would the argument have any weight against an 'authentic' system that can provide the pleasure that motivates us?  (such as in BNW)

[Triple Zero]

I don't really think that BNW is "authentic" enough. That's kind of why the protagonist is doing what he's doing. Also the people in the reservations.

But that's okay, let's assume a BNW-style utopia that is "authentic" enough.

Obviously, if the machine would be able to convince people that, in addition to happiness, they'll also have whatever they feel would be lacking (freedom), if it would 100% convince them, then yes.

But how would that work?

What would the machine need to be, to show, to be able to convince people?

I know I'd be skeptic. I'd still have to step in. And I just don't know about that. I bet there's people who wouldn't mind, though. And they'd love it (after all, the machine does exactly what is promised).

But what about the others? If the machine, or perhaps your altruistic hedonist trickster operator, were able to convince them regardless, it means that they'd in fact be controlled already before they would make the choice. Which means they were already deprived of the freedom they would have wanted to choose. And um, in that scenario, paradoxically would mean that freedom of choice is one thing the machine cannot provide, breaking its promise.

Or something. That's the best I can do

[Elder Iptuous]

well the savage in BNW was unhappy because he wasn't properly conditioned to the system in the way that all the others were.  he was thereby not truly in it.  if he was, then he would be happy too, no?  Bernard, also, was considered to be an outlier, and not properly conditioned. 

regarding freedom as a means to happiness, if asked why you want freedom, you say 'because it makes me happier being able to do what i want'.  if asked why you want happiness, you just give a blank stare.

we willingly give up freedoms in order to achieve greater happiness, but i think it is arguable whether we do the inverse.
if you were given the choice of giving up some degree of happiness for the sake of freedom, and assured that you would not derive any other satisfaction to lend a greater amount of happiness, would you do it?

[Cramulus]

BNW gives me warm fuzzies.
what's to fear in a setup like that if everyone is happy and the system is sustainable and works?

I mean, we're steeped in the fiercely individualistic society, but the freedom is only a means to an end, namely, happiness, right?  and iff that end can be reached without freedom, then why not?

I had this reaction to BNW too. Most of the people in BNW seem comfortable with their level of freedom. If we were viewing BNW as another culture here on earth, instead of an alternate universe, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. After all, I'm evaluating their culture based on a value which isn't present in it.

If you wrote up a description of 2011 and showed it to some Puritans a few hundred years ago, they'd certainly think they were reading a dystopian novel .... from their cultural POV, they'd view us as heathens who have lost touch with god's natural order.

But from where I'm sitting, religious tolerance and diversity is a good thing. Women and blacks having the same right as white dudes is a good thing. But it might not appear that way if you don't share our values.

[Triple Zero]

regarding freedom as a means to happiness, if asked why you want freedom, you say 'because it makes me happier being able to do what i want'.  if asked why you want happiness, you just give a blank stare.

well that's the thing, freedom doesn't always make me happier. but I still want it.

it would make me very uncomfortable having to give it up, even if that's what stands in the way of True Happiness. so uncomfortable, I might (might) rather settle for Lesser Happiness if it includes freedom. plus I'd be free to find out if I could find Happiness all by myself. well, unless everybody is hooked up to that machine, then it'd be kind of boring on the outside, and I'd probably jump in anyway.

we willingly give up freedoms in order to achieve greater happiness, but i think it is arguable whether we do the inverse.
if you were given the choice of giving up some degree of happiness for the sake of freedom, and assured that you would not derive any other satisfaction to lend a greater amount of happiness, would you do it?

I'd say that freedom with that condition isn't really freedom.

But I think we're going in circles a littlebit now. I'd just say that when I heard in class of how both Freedom and Happiness together make up the axes of what is Good, that really rhymed true to me. Because just Happiness would inevitably lead to hedonism, and that doesn't ring right. It's a hunch, of sorts, but I liked the way they both sort of balance each other's shortcoming. Even if Happiness's shortcoming is of the awfully sweet kind.

[Elder Iptuous]

having been brewed in a Freedom loving society, i tend to have the same leaning as you, Trip.  but, rationally it seems that it is worth giving up freedom if it guarantees happiness.

So, as another ridiculous thought experiment, if you had a little slider that would magically set, by inverse proportionality, your happiness and your freedom... it seems to me that it would not be possible, after having bumped it all the way to the happy end, to slide it back.
if there is some inverse proportionality in any sense, then it would appear that freedom is only the freedom to be unhappy.  which we naturally have an aversion to.

I think the terms are unable to be pinned down, is why we're talking in circles, no?

[Doktor Howl]

having been brewed in a Freedom loving society, i tend to have the same leaning as you, Trip.  but, rationally it seems that it is worth giving up freedom if it guarantees happiness.

I maintain that you can't be happy without being free.  Complacent, maybe, but that's not the same thing.

[P3nT4gR4m]

having been brewed in a Freedom loving society, i tend to have the same leaning as you, Trip.  but, rationally it seems that it is worth giving up freedom if it guarantees happiness.

I maintain that you can't be happy without being free.  Complacent, maybe, but that's not the same thing.

Agreed. I just came back to my shitty life, from a week in the wilderness where I was, to all intents and purposes, 100% free. I felt the shackles of this fucking stinking society snap shut around me as I drove back into town. I won't be happy until I'm either back there or western civilisation is a smouldering pile of ashes. The booze and hash will take the edge off, some teevee and similar mindless distraction just enough to prevent me taking a match to this town myself. But this aint the land of the fucking free. It's a nation of fucking zombie slaves.

[Triple Zero]

So, as another ridiculous thought experiment, if you had a little slider that would magically set, by inverse proportionality, your happiness and your freedom... it seems to me that it would not be possible, after having bumped it all the way to the happy end, to slide it back.

That's a really, really, really weird thingy device you just thought up, man.

I'm not really sure if it's logically possible, either. Or even imaginable.

The part where you slide up and down your happiness is relatively easy to imagine. Just that it's gotta be more than a stimulus to your brain's pleasure center or a boost in serotonine, cause those two aren't Happiness.

But what about the other part where you slide up and down your freedom? What's that even mean?

And yeah, to answer your question, if you'd slide it all the way to the happy end, you'd be at zero freedom, so whether it stays there or not, you won't have any say in it. You can't slide it back anyhow, cause you don't have the freedom to do so. Someone else could, OR MAYBE THEY WOULDNT JUST TO FUCK WITH YOU--OR NOT! Or the wind could blow it. Or maybe the universe would just take the entire thingy away from you because it's so ridiculous and it won't be having any of that malarkey?

[Elder Iptuous]

Trip,  yeah i guess it is broken in that sense. (i hadn't really taken it that far in my head)

having been brewed in a Freedom loving society, i tend to have the same leaning as you, Trip.  but, rationally it seems that it is worth giving up freedom if it guarantees happiness.

I maintain that you can't be happy without being free.  Complacent, maybe, but that's not the same thing.

If you are given the option to live in a world where anything you would want to do is allowable, and anything that you would elect not to do is verboten, would you be 'free'?