A sign of the times?

(by Jonny)

I work on a shop floor. In between the inevitable chores any quality retail outfit would demand, is the less inevitable philosophical discourse that frequently arises between staff. Yesterday the topic of the day was personal identity. What I particularly enjoyed about the discussion was the surprising, for me anyway, acceptability of what I thought was a non-conventional view of the self. Not that everyone was in precise agreement, but what was in consensus was a rejection of the “traditional view” of there existing a distinct and fundamental self which essentially constitutes “us”, which is independent of the complex interaction of varied biological processes and is ultimately, if not always completely, at the helm of the gross body. The rejection of this view in favour of an idea that self is far more fragile, far more contingent, and without constituting a single central executive, was a pleasant discovery.

It reminded me of a class a couple of years ago when my lecturer polled the class asking whether they would willingly enter Nozick's famous experience machine (in short, a machine capable of producing in the subject an artificial life consisting of whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences she should want). When a little over the half said they would be willing to enter the machine he responded, unfazed, that this was a consistent trend among contemporary undergraduates that contradicted the results of polls taken in the 70s when the thought experiment was first introduced in “Anarchy State and Utopia” (1974). Though I'm a fan of thought experiments (usually because they sound like cool ideas for scifi stories), it does make you question the value of generalised results . In this case, initial results may not be the refutation of a certain utilitarianism some might like to think it is. 

My experience machine life would basically look like a prog rock cover

In any case these discussions continue to prove that philosophical dialogue is as popular as it ever was and will continue to be, and further that we should be cautious to infer intuitions or make sweeping conclusions about societies' predominant convictions.

Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books