I have made no complaint. Nor am I discussing suffering although that is an interesting topic. I am only creating a hypothetical where one has the dilemma of either truth or happiness.

Mr. Anderson is mad of course, but shhh, don't tell anyone! — Agent Smith

He is just Alice who sometimes visits wonderland and meets a wicked queen called agent Smith.
The switcheroo was just that Alice starts off in wonderland and wakes up in dystopia.
For me, Alice was always a bit of a mad character. She has such strange dreams!

I am only creating a hypothetical where one has the dilemma of either truth or happiness. — TheMadMan

But is your main driver for choosing one against the other based on suffering?
You are presenting the cost of gaining truth as increased suffering and that the only road to 'real' happiness is to embrace delusion and accept you will never know the truth of the world.

But is you main driver for choosing one against the other based on suffering? — universeness

No.

You are presenting the cost of gaining truth as increased suffering — universeness

In choosing the truth the suffering is not necessarily increased in the real world. One is merely refusing the addition of happiness from the matrix.

So, why do you choose a hypothetical that excludes the possibility of achieving truth AND happiness?
To me, that's a mad mans hypothetical and belongs firmly to the mind of the pessimist.

So, why do you choose a hypothetical that excludes the possibility of achieving truth AND happiness? — universeness

Because there are certain moments in one's life when they are exclusive.

To me, that's a mad mans hypothetical and belongs firmly to the mind of the pessimist. — universeness

It's not pessimist or optimist. It's a pragmatic hypothetical.

Because there are certain moments in one's life when they are exclusive. — TheMadMan

I am glad you confirm that these are 'moments' and not permanent immutable states.

I disagree that your hypothetical is pragmatic, as a pragmatist would emphasize the fact that your hypothetical is not suggesting a choice between truth and happiness which is forever mutually exclusive.
If you are now saying that your hypothetical is only referencing those times in a persons life when you have a choice between two evils, 'happiness at the expense of truth' or 'truth at the expense of happiness' then fine.

Hypothetical: You have learned that your partner who you love has cheated you multiple times.
I give the chance to press a button and completely forget that he/she has cheated on you. So you continue your relationship blissfully unaware and you are happy.
Would you push the button? — TheMadMan

I wouldn't push the button — T Clark

Neither would I. Although I suffered, I also experience happiness in the truth of the situation because I found out about her before we became too economically entwined and had kids etc, etc.
Yep, that did actually happen to me. Another part of that story is, she came back years later with a child in tow and suggested we got back together as 'I was the one she should have chosen.'
I did not take her up on her offer. In my opinion, I ..... eventually gained happiness from the bitter truth of her earlier actions. For me, truth before happiness but I don't assume such for everyone else.
Would I tell someone they were going to die within months, if I thought it would mean they would live their last months in terror but at least they could prepare themselves? Very tough choice indeed!

Alice is an archetype and what does she possess?

An interesting but slightly mad imagination!

I disagree that your hypothetical is pragmatic — universeness

I disagree. The pragmatism is very clear.

If you are now saying that your hypothetical is only referencing those times in a persons life when you have a choice between two evils, 'happiness at the expense of truth' or 'truth at the expense of happiness' then fine. — universeness

That is it. Although I don't agree that 'truth at the expense of (illusory) happiness' is evil. In your own words:

I ..... eventually gained happiness from the bitter truth — universeness

Although I don't agree that 'truth at the expense of (illusory) happiness' is evil. — TheMadMan

Evil is a personal judgement and a personal manifestation, as well as an interpretation based on the notions of morality held by individuals or based on legislated morality (law). I agree that 'truth at the expense of happiness' ALWAYS being an evil, is subjective. It's always has been an evil for me. The fact that I have often been able to turn such experiences to my personal eventual benefit does not mean the initial pain caused, ever goes away completely.
The evil is still there, but it is unable to defeat me, anytime it is remembered.

It's always has been an evil for me. — universeness

Well, fair enough.

I think we're missing something in the conversation. You've only emphasized the positive qualities, and not the negative ones.

1. The robots have complete control over when you live and die. If you had cancer or a problem with your actual body, you think they would spend the energy to fix it? No.

2. The robots have complete control over your program. In the matrix, some people are poor, programmed to be poor, and programmed to live miserable lives. Lets say you get lucky and have the nice life, for now. There is no certainty that it will continue no matter what you do. Your free will is extremely limited, much more than in reality.

3. The program is not designed to give you a perfect life. It is designed with its entire intention to farm you for energy with you becoming aware of it. Wouldn't you have a much greater interest in your own benefit then someone using you as a battery? What if in the future the robots figure out other ways of farming you for energy then what they are currently providing?

4. Your ability to do anything meangingful is gone. You are living a dream the entire time. You really do not invent anything new. Physics discoveries? Programmed by the matrix. Your child? Just an artificially cooked up kid from genetics that don't belong to you that you've been programmed to have an imprint on.

I think the only rational decision is to take the red pill. Someone who does not have your well being at interest but is only interested in using what you have should not be in control of your life and fate.

The exclusion of those points is deliberate as they open too many doors. My hypothetical is not set in the world of the movie. But if you would like it be be so, be my guest.

The exclusion of those points is deliberate as they open too many doors. My hypothetical is not set in the world of the movie. But if you would like it be be so, be my guest. — TheMadMan

That's very fair!

I suppose the question can be rephrased like this then.

1. Your life is an illusion created in your mind. An outside being feeds you this illusion, crafting a world to your innate desires. By your life's end, you will obtain everything you wanted in this illusion.

2. There is a "real world". You don't know what it is or what it would entail. But in the real world this outside being would not be feeding you illusions or controlling the outcome of your life.

3. One day someone comes along and informs you of all this. You can be assured that this is not a trick. You are given the option to enter into the unknown. Do you?

The problem to answer this adequately is we must know what the alternative to the simulation entails.
What is the outside world like, and what is going on? Are people living harsh lives and working to make it better while my body leeches off of this being? Do I have loved ones that miss me? Are we all experiencing this? Could it shape my life in such a way that I would think I would want something in its world? That I was being programmed to be satisfied?

We don't really have a choice otherwise. We can craft the question to get the outcome we want which is, "Yes, its optimal and rational to take the blue pill". But a good question should present us with known choices to be more than a personality quiz. Saying, "Would you take what is familiar and beneficial to you or lose it for the potential of something better." isn't really a rational discussion, as its an inductive question that relies on a personal choice.

Now if you are more interested in personal choices, that is fine, its a very good question. I can answer that some will say yes, and others no based on their risk aversion/reward systems. If you want something where rationality can enter into the mix and we can debate a correct choice, I think we need to be presented with the full set of alternatives and possible consequences of choosing the red pill over the blue.

Yes, this hypothetical changes a lot. My choice may seem radical but I would take the red pill regardless of what the real world is like. Of course assuming that in your hypothetical suicide is an option in the real world.

Yes, this hypothetical changes a lot. My choice may seem radical but I would take the red pill regardless of what the real world is like. Of course assuming that in your hypothetical suicide is an option in the real world. — TheMadMan

I don't think its radical at all! Thanks for the discussion. :smile:

Pleasure

A quibble first. I think for most people it couldn't give everything we want, since a part of us would like to know what is really going on. I get it. After we choose the blue pill, we would think we knew what was really going on. But at the moment of choosing, we are not choosing to experience everything we want if we take the blue pill.

Thought 2: this is a very different scenario from the film. People in the matrix did not have everything they wanted.

So, we have this choice - we return to the matrix with no memory of there being anything else OR we find out some of what is really going on.

Thought 3 - we are choosing between a known - if we've been in the matrix before and it was good - and an unknown. The latter having as a positive aspect that it would be more real. But, as in the film, much of the realer life might be very unpleasant. (short term, long term)

Thought 4 - I believe that we are all, right now, choosing the blue pill (and to some degree the red pill) already. I am not suggesting a formal conspiracy theory is the case. I am thinking of our willingness to notice out own motivations, desire, emotions, judgments, etc. that are ego dystonic or just plain unpleasant to notice/experience. I say this because anyone taking a very firm pro-red pill stance needs to consider that they are probably choosing with great regularity to not known things about themselves and other people. Some peoplel make that kind of red-pilling a priority. If they catch a flicker of a feeling or judgment or desire they can tell they don't really like catching that flicker, they make a conscious choice to investigate, allow the feeling to express, find out what they are really thinking and feeling (also).

Thought 5 - in the film Neo feels like there is something off about 'reality'. Further, his life doesn't look great. You are proposing a perfect Matrix. In the situation where I am choosing pill, how did I get out of the Matrix? What does it seems like is really going on? Do I have any hints about the motivations of the Matrix makers? What is the person like who is offering me the choice?

I have addressed most of your points previously but in short the film scenario doesn't apply in my hypothetical. Like @Philosophim it seems you want to engage these questions in the film's framework.

I find it a very hard scenario to imagine, which is why I tried to get at it through teasing it away from the movie. I think the use of the Matrix scenario/jargon is confusing. A simpler do you take truth or happiness, though even then I still can't picture the scenario. I think any answering the question would entail me projecting things on the situation - from life. And these cannot be appropriate since I do not see that choice as binary and in every situation where I choose happiness without truth, this is at least partly delusional. The truth has effects. Sort of like heroin has an experiential downside, as does denial, workaholism, platic surgery, and so on. In your scenario the truth has zero effects plus I have not the slightest idea what that truth might be. Here, I generally do have at least a feeling level sense.

Which is fine. You have your situation, as described, though it seems very partial. It's not the film scenario which I got, but it's not clear what it is. Some will not find that a problem, but I actually think they are answering about a choice they have no idea if they would make it, because the scenario is so vague AND utterly unlike the choices we have in this world.

Doesn't that imply that you value truth in the expense of happiness? — TheMadMan

Not necessarily. I think it would vary from situation to situation.

The blue pill gives us what is ostensibly certain, assuming we trust whoever allows us to make the decision. We get to live a long and happy life, after being reborn in ignorance of having chosen at all.

The red pill gives us what is uncertain, possibly misery, disease and premature death in some foreign reality. Though this hypothetical is colored by what we know happens in the film.

I'd take the blue pill, assuming I could ever trust that the promise is true.

Afterall, we've got super smart folks pontificating about how our everyday sense of phenomenal reality is already an illusion. I don't think whatever constitutes reality here offers us the promise of control. Maybe it does in a collective sense, assuming I'm a member of Zion who has some knowledge of the world as it stands. I guess I'm uncertain about exactly what is on offer.

What if the probability was that 99 times out of 100, choosing the red pill results in death, or transport to a kind of life our ancestors lived 10,000 years ago, but we can't know this. While on the flip side, however short our simulated life is, it is determined to be a good one.

Edit: But I hope God (the Architect) isn't recording this as a preference...

I'd say it's neither rational nor irrational. It's a question of values, which are non-rational. — T Clark

This is debatable. To take a common example, many value money over happiness. This might be irrational, as money might be valued as instrumental towards happiness. Similarly, understanding might be valued as instrumental towards the joy of deeper understanding. What use then is this understanding, if in this case it leads to a state of perpetual joylessness?

Just as bad, suppose these values are not instrumental. Suppose that money was valued absolutely, as an end in itself. Wouldn't this be irrational, a kind of arbitrary idolatry? Especially if it supersedes other values, such as the happiness and well being of yourself and others. Similarly, mightn't understanding as an absolute end in itself, be a kind of irrational idolatry?

Would you say that pursuing happiness and well-being is rational behaviour and denying yourself the opportunity for it, is irrational? — TheMadMan

I don't think you can derive an ought from an is. A preference for happiness might be pre rational.

I don't think facts about the worlds should necessarily compel any behaviour and if facts should lead behaviour it is not clear which behaviour and which facts.
Should I take an umbrella out if it rains? Should I give to charity? Should I eat more fruit and vegetables?

I am not sure if reality is or has to be rational at its base. In one sense it seems nature must obey rational laws and that reality can't have contradictory happenings or even things like uncaused causes.

Matrix style skeptical situations lead to an infinite regress of possible illusory states of being it seems.

Understanding before happiness ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/768538

This is debatable. — hypericin

I suppose, but I stand by my judgement. Going beyond that is outside the bounds of this discussion.

Going beyond that is outside the bounds of this discussion. — T Clark

Going beyond your judgement is out of bounds? I see. You argued that values are arational, and so the question does not apply. I say that values can indeed be irrational.

Similarly, mightn't understanding as an absolute end in itself, be a kind of irrational idolatry? — hypericin

That's a good question.
I would say that worshiping understanding without realizing it (living it) is irrational idolatry.
It's like praying to the statue of the prophet while shunning the actual prophet.

I say that values can indeed be irrational. — hypericin

Yes, I understand that.