You can imagine a) everyone in their own experience machine isolated from everyone else, so that all the other āpeopleā inside are not conscious (but the people believe the others are conscious, and thereās no risk theyāll find out they arenāt), or b) people genuinely interacting with each other (in the real world, or virtual reality), making real connections with other real people. I think most people would prefer the latter for themselves, even if it makes them somewhat worse off. An impartial hedonistic view would recommend disregarding these preferences and putting everyone in the isolated experience machines anyway.
Not related to your point, but I would like to note it seems quite extreme to reject the application of hedonism in the context of welfare range estimates based on such thought experiment.
It is unclear to me whether ETHU is greater in a) or b). It depends on whether it is more efficient to produce it via experience machines or genuine interactions (I suppose utility per being would be higher with experience machines, but maybe not utility per unit resources). So I do not think people preferring a) or b) is good evidence that there is something else which matters besides ETHU.
It does not seem possible to make a hard distinction between a) and b). I am only able to perceive reality via my own conscious experience, so there is a sense in which my body is in fact an experience machine.
I believe most people preferring b) over a) is very weak evidence that b) is better than a). Our intuitions are biased towards assessing the thought experiment based on how the words used to describe it make us feel. As a 1st approximation, I think people would be thinking about whether āgenuineā and ārealā sound better than āmachineā and āisolatedā, and they do, so I am not surprised most people prefer b).
You can imagine a) everyone in their own experience machine isolated from everyone else, so that all the other āpeopleā inside are not conscious (but the people believe the others are conscious, and thereās no risk theyāll find out they arenāt), or b) people genuinely interacting with each other (in the real world, or virtual reality), making real connections with other real people. I think most people would prefer the latter for themselves, even if it makes them somewhat worse off. An impartial hedonistic view would recommend disregarding these preferences and putting everyone in the isolated experience machines anyway.
Thanks for the clarification! Some thoughts:
Not related to your point, but I would like to note it seems quite extreme to reject the application of hedonism in the context of welfare range estimates based on such thought experiment.
It is unclear to me whether ETHU is greater in a) or b). It depends on whether it is more efficient to produce it via experience machines or genuine interactions (I suppose utility per being would be higher with experience machines, but maybe not utility per unit resources). So I do not think people preferring a) or b) is good evidence that there is something else which matters besides ETHU.
It does not seem possible to make a hard distinction between a) and b). I am only able to perceive reality via my own conscious experience, so there is a sense in which my body is in fact an experience machine.
I believe most people preferring b) over a) is very weak evidence that b) is better than a). Our intuitions are biased towards assessing the thought experiment based on how the words used to describe it make us feel. As a 1st approximation, I think people would be thinking about whether āgenuineā and ārealā sound better than āmachineā and āisolatedā, and they do, so I am not surprised most people prefer b).