(intro music)
Hi, I'm Joshua Knobe[br]from Yale University,
and today, I'm going to be talking about
a new approach to philosophy[br]that is sometimes
called "experimental philosophy."
The basic idea behind[br]experimental philosophy
is that we might be able to make
some philosophical progress[br]by actually going out
and running systematic[br]experimental studies,
much like the experiments[br]people usually run
in social psychology or[br]in cognitive science.
Now you might be thinking
"How could running a study like that
"ever help us make any[br]progress in philosophy?
"After all, Philosophy[br]isn't supposed to be
"about how people ordinarily think.
"It is supposed to be about figuring out
"which answers to these questions
"are actually the right ones."
This is definitely exactly the[br]right question to be asking.
But experimental philosophers claim
that by running these[br]studies, we can get some
valuable insight into why people[br]have the thoughts they do,
and if we understand why[br]people typically have
the thoughts they do,[br]we might be able to get
a better sense of whether[br]we should be putting
our trust in those thoughts[br]or just dismissing them.
There's a lot of controversy about whether
this approach can ever actually work,
but I thought it might be good
just to give you a quick example
so that you can make up[br]your mind for yourself.
The experimental philosopher[br]Felipe De Brigard
recently ran a series of[br]experiments to investigate
the way people ordinarily[br]think about a famous
philosophical thought experiment called
"The Experience Machine."
His idea was that if we could[br]get a better understanding
of what is going on in our minds
when we hear this thought experiment,
we might be in a better[br]position to figure out
whether our thoughts about[br]it are correct or incorrect.
Now the experience machine
thought experiment goes like this.
Imagine that in the future,[br]there are super-duper
neuroscientists, and these[br]neuroscientists are able
to create a machine that[br]can stimulate your brain
in such a way that you think
you're having a truly amazing life.
So if you enter the[br]machine, you will think
you are accomplishing[br]extraordinary things,
that you're having deep and[br]fulfilling relationships,
and that everyone[br]admires and respects you.
But you won't really be[br]doing anything at all.
In real life, you'll just be a person
lying in a vat of water somewhere
being stimulated to believe that
all these amazing things are happening.
Now comes the question:
would you go into the machine?
Most people say that they wouldn't,
and philosophers sometimes start
with this basic thought and use it
as part of an argument for the conclusion
that there is more to life
than just experiencing happiness,
that there is something[br]important about being
connected up, in the[br]right way, to reality.
But De Brigard thought that maybe
there was more to this[br]story, so he conducted
an experiment in which participants
were given a case we might call
"The Reverse Experiment Machine."
The reverse experience[br]machine case goes like this.
Imagine you are going[br]about your ordinary life,
when one day, you get a visit
from a mysterious man named Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith explains to[br]you that this whole life
you think you've been leading,
with all your supposed[br]friends, your accomplishments,
even your mother and father,[br]is simply an illusion.
A number of years ago, you encountered
some super-duper neuroscientists
and they offered to put you[br]into an experience machine,
where you would be stimulated to believe
that you had exactly this life[br]you think you've been having.
Now, you face a question:
if you'd like, you can leave the machine
and go back to your real life,
or, if you prefer, you can[br]stay inside the machine
and the neuroscientists[br]will erase any memory
you have of the visit from Smith.
So think about it for a moment.
What would you do?
When De Brigard framed[br]the thought experiment
in this reversed way, he[br]found that most people
actually said they wanted[br]to stay in the machine.
So now it seems that we have learned
something important about ourselves,
and that we might want to re-evaluate
the conclusion we drew[br]from the original version.
When we were just thinking[br]about that original version,
we had a particular intuition,[br]and that intuition led us,
as part of a complex[br]philosophical argument,
to arrive at a certain conclusion
about what was truly important in life.
But now it seems that we've[br]acquired some new knowledge
about the psychological[br]processes that made us
have that intuition in the first place.
We learned that these[br]processes aren't just sensitive
to the difference between[br]reality and illusion.
They also leave us with a strong tendency
to stick with whatever sort[br]of life we've already got.
So, now that you've learned
this new fact about how people think,
would you still arrive[br]at the same conclusion
from the experience[br]machine thought experiment?
Subtitles by the Amara.org community