I think of 'brains in vats' tales as imagined by the idle rich, who can somehow conceive of such scenarios without the many labourers and other resources and energy that would be needed for each brain. In short, it brings out the old socialist in me who is otherwise usually asleep these days.

Interesting, but I keep finding I can't get to an answer without having to come to a naive assumption or three. For example, "the best possible lives imaginable" leads to an infinite regress of more and more exalted states. States for which the brain would become obsolete, where do I draw the line? An interesting thought though.

Don't be put off by the brain; it just represents whatever infrastructure we might imagine to be necessary to support our being able to experiences "the best lives possible". In the lecture series Grim imagines these lives in terms of things like having the perfect love life, being a genius in some field who wins the Nobel prize, and enjoys universal acclaim, being an artistic genius in whatever art you fancy, enjoying states of continuous spiritual bliss, or really whatever you would imagine to be the best possible life for you. By pushing the button you cause everyone to live the best possible life as imagined by each one. No personal effort is required to achieve any of this, but people would be given as part of their experience a simulated memory of having made the requisite efforts to achieve it, and this is the key point. Phenomenologically, the experiences would be indistinguishable from real life experiences of the same situations and events.

You should forget about the 'external' issue of what might be imagined to be needed to support all the brains, and just focus on the 'internal' ethical issues raised by being able to enjoy the experience of achieving whatever your heart desires and to the fullest extent possible without having to make any effort to get there.

Your life would be so much more enjoyable and fulfilled, but it would be an illusion; so would you choose it for yourself? Would you choose it for everyone, if it were in your power? If so why, and if not, why not?

Well, while imagining it I was brought to a shuddering halt when I realised that I would be putting a lot of immature beings in a paradise which they wouldn't know how to cope with. It would be pitiful to watch, I think. Maybe I wouldn't press the button until every person was mature enough to proceed.
It reminds me of the parable of the genie and the lamp.

You have to imagine that you can press the button and everyone is able to cope with paradise (despite the fact that they haven't worked to earn the ability to cope with it, and that is really the point); if they couldn't cope then their lives could not be the best imaginable lives.

Well I don't know if my imagination is to optimistic, but that being the case we are God and humanity is a distant memory.

It's just a thought experiment to try to see what your ethical and ontological commitments are. Think of it another way; if you could push a button and everyone would instantly be in Nirvana; no effort needed and no questions asked; would you do it? You might say that would have to be a fake, unearned Nirvana, but could there be any difference between absolutely believing you were in Nirvana and actually being in Nirvana? If so, what could the difference be?

A few thoughts:

The first is to ask 'what is the point of the thought experiment?' It is so far removed from anything that could be possible in this world, and presumes such an extreme degree of certainty about outcomes, that it cannot give us any insight into morality, which is about how to make decisions in this world, in the presence of uncertainty.

The second is that it has quite a few similarities to Robert Nozick's experience machine.

The third is that different answers would be likely between preference utilitarians and hedonic utilitarians - the former aiming to maximise satisfaction of preferences, and the latter, to maximise net pleasure. A hedonic one may perhaps say 'push the button', but a preference one would not, because they would reason that most people, given an opportunity to abandon this life and all that they love, for a future life of unknown pleasure, would prefer not to.

OK, but it's not meant to give us insight into how to make decisions in this world, but rather into the ontological and ethical commitments that are entailed by the choices that we would make in this kind of extreme hypothetical scenario.

I can see your point about the distinction between preference utilitarians and hedonic utilitarians, but remember, the scenario is that everyone gets to live the best life they can imagine, so for those who want to stay with everything they love, they would get to do that,and to an even more perfect degree, because all of the inadequacies and dissatisfaction would be gone from that familiar life.

Of course, you might object that you don't want to make that choice for others; so, in that case what choice would you make for yourself?

And yes, it is somewhat similar to Nozick's "experience machine" thought experiment.

I wouldn't press that darn button mate. Just leave the world as it is, it's already great.

Well, I totally agree with you; I would not push it either, and that is consistent with the fact that I am neither a utilitarian, an anti-realist nor a truth relativist.

I am really interested in hearing how folk who identify themselves as any of those think they could reconcile such commitments with a 'no' decision.

1. If someone says 'No' then they could not be committed to anti-realism, or phenomenalism.
2. if someone says 'No' then they could not be committed to truth relativism.
3. If someone says 'No' then they could not be committed to the Postmodern notion (a la Baudrillard) that reality is a simulacrum. — John

But why not? Could the nay sayer believe in dreams within dreams?

These questions fuck with my mind too much. How do I know you didn't just push the button and leave me thinking I'm pushing the button now that I'm just a vat brain?

But that is the point; if everything is thought to be nothing more than dreams within dreams then there could be no reason not to push the button since the quality of experience would be so much better for everyone.

You don't, but the point is, does it matter, and if so why?

If I'm a brain in a vat it matters because it requires a higher power, an evil or benevolent genius brain fucking me. It makes me religious and shit.

Remember that in this hypothetical scenario you would not know you were a brain in vat. Your life would be indistinguishable from this life, other than the fact that everything is unimaginably perfect and enjoyable to the maximum; everything you could ever wished for with no downsides.

But that is the point; if everything is thought to be nothing more than dreams within dreams then there could be no reason not to push the button since the quality of experience would be so much better for everyone. — John

But pathological situations are dramatic. From a certain point of view life is drama.

So, you are saying life cannot even be imagined as maximally enjoyable without that it entails some effort, pain and dissatisfaction?

Well that's a challenge. Maybe write a play that starts off really well, things go really well and then the ending is joyous. Wouldn't it put people to sleep?

OK, but we are talking about what what people would choose for their own lives, not what kind of play they would watch.

I mean, people regularly watch all kinds of horrendously violent TV drama; and I'm pretty sure they don't want their lives to be like that.

Happiness consists of those feelings people say they want making it impossible to give someone the best life possible if they simply don't want it.

You're misunderstanding the scenario; in it people get exactly what they want. They get the life wherein everything turns out exactly as they would want it to.

Would you give it to them? Would you give it to yourself? If so, why? If not, why not?

You're misunderstanding the scenario; in it people get exactly what they want. They get the life wherein everything turns out exactly as they would want it to. — John

I have yet to meet anyone who wants to be a brain in vat.

Go back and read properly; in this thought experiment you don't know you are a BIV.

How can you know what you want if you don't know what's available? If your options are limited at all, and even worse, hidden, then you can't deliver on the promise.

If it would do everything that it is claiming to be able to do then I'm sure everyone would, and probably someday will be pushing a similar button for at least a few hours a day.

"Thoughts?"

It is a leading question: If you could make everything perfect would you? The question leaves no room for any real world ethical evaluation, and would create bias results. It does give a true reflection of an individual's position. You can't muddy the water and expect usable valid results. I am sorry but philosophy has to be practical or it becomes useless; and it should be considered in appropriate context.

My ethical views are, in part, a reaction to, and the result of the environment that I am in, and if you remove me from that environment, trying to set me in a fantasy, then you will not get an accurate view of my position. The goal of a philosopher should be to understand truth as it is; not shape the truth into the desired image.

I wouldn't press that darn button mate. Just leave the world as it is, it's already great. — Agustino

The world is shit, I'd press it in a heartbeat.

I'd even go as far as saying you have an ethical obligation to push it. For all those people suffering and literally starving to death, for all those dying of horrible diseases, or all the tragic prolonged deaths people will go through in the future. For everyone with material want, for everyone suffering the evils of mental illness, for all those with disabilities, for all the lonely people wanting partners, for all the sterile people desparate for kids, for all the wars, natural disasters, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You would rid the world of suffering. Why would you not push it?

What of the person suddenly transported to the Nirvana Vat? Would they remember their old existence? If so, would they not then recognize the change? I mean, going from this life to a problem-free, pain-free, "perfect" world would seem rather jarring. And obvious.

Given that you have prepped us with this question, I guess now we will know when (or if) it occurs.