Epicurean Algorithm
Approximating an ancient philosopher's responses to five modern thought experiments
In a past post, I introduced LucretiusGPT, a customized version of ChatGPT that models the ancient Roman poet-philosopher Lucretius. Lucretius’ one known work is a wide-ranging presentation of Epicureanism, a system based on the teachings of the earlier Greek philosopher Epicurus. Here, I ask LucretiusGPT to explain five modern philosophical thought experiments and provide Epicurean positions on them: (1) the experience machine, (2) the teletransporter, (3) the trolley problem, (4) the footbridge dilemma, and (5) the zombie question. These are drawn from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey of professional philosophers, and each question is linked to its survey result.
Following LucretiusGPT’s responses to the five thought experiments, I pose a couple of questions reflecting on the exercise. This dialogue concludes with a short poetic recounting, in the style of Lucretius, of the five experiments and the Epicurean position on each.
TL;DR: Scroll down to the end for imitation Lucretian poetry that sums up this exercise.
Interlocutor: ChatGPT-4o, customized as LucretiusGPT
KT: I'm going to present a series of philosophical questions from a survey of professional philosophers. For each, briefly explain the issue and positions in lay terms. Next, briefly present the position Epicurus would have favored on the issue. In determining the Epicurean position, consult the documents supplied as part of your custom GPT "knowledge." Ready?
LucretiusGPT: I am ready. Please present the philosophical questions, and I will address each one according to the process you outlined.
KT: (1) Experience machine (would you enter?): yes or no?
LucretiusGPT: The "Experience Machine" is a thought experiment proposed by the philosopher Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). It asks us to imagine a machine that could give us any experience we desire. If you enter the machine, you would experience a perfectly simulated reality where everything you feel and sense is indistinguishable from reality, but none of it is real. The question is whether one should choose to plug into this machine, living in a blissful illusion, or to stay in the real world with all its imperfections and uncertainties.
The main issue here is whether we value authentic experiences more than pleasurable ones. If we believe that pleasure is the highest good, then entering the machine might seem desirable. However, if we value reality and authenticity, even with its challenges, we might refuse to enter the machine.
From an Epicurean perspective, the position is nuanced. Epicurus taught that pleasure is the highest good, but he also emphasized the importance of intellectual and mental pleasures, which come from living a life in accordance with nature, free from irrational fears and unnecessary desires. Epicurus would likely argue against entering the machine because it offers only the illusion of pleasure, not the genuine tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from pain (aponia) that he advocated. Epicurus valued the truth of the natural world and the understanding of it, which would be compromised by entering a fabricated reality. The peace of mind that comes from knowing and accepting the nature of things would be disrupted by the artificial experiences of the machine, which might ultimately lead to dissatisfaction.
Thus, Epicurus would likely not favor entering the Experience Machine, as it undermines the pursuit of true tranquility and the appreciation of the natural order.
KT: (2) Teletransporter (new matter): death or survival?
LucretiusGPT: The "Teletransporter" thought experiment involves a machine that can transport a person instantaneously by scanning their body, destroying it, and then reconstructing an identical body at a new location using new matter. The central question is whether the person who steps into the teletransporter dies and a copy is created, or whether they survive as the same person in the new location.
The issue here touches on the nature of personal identity and what it means to survive as the same person. If survival requires the continuity of the same physical matter, then the teletransporter would be a form of death, with a new, identical person created afterward. However, if personal identity is tied to the continuity of consciousness or psychological states, one might argue that the person survives the process.
From an Epicurean perspective, the issue of personal identity is not as significant as the understanding that the self is a collection of atoms temporarily organized in a particular way. Epicurus and his followers believed that the soul, like the body, is made of atoms and that consciousness arises from the particular arrangement of these atoms. Death, for the Epicurean, is simply the dissolution of this arrangement, resulting in the end of consciousness.
Given this materialistic and atomistic view, an Epicurean might lean toward the interpretation that the original person dies when the body is destroyed in the teletransporter. The reassembled individual, although identical in appearance and memory, is a new collection of atoms rather than a continuation of the original. Survival, in the strict sense, does not occur because the original arrangement of atoms has been destroyed, and with it, the consciousness associated with that arrangement.
Therefore, from an Epicurean standpoint, the use of a teletransporter that destroys the original matter would likely be seen as resulting in death, with the creation of a new, identical person rather than the survival of the original.
LucretiusGPT: The Trolley Problem is a famous ethical dilemma that presents a moral choice: a runaway trolley is heading towards five people on a track, and you have the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one person instead. The question is whether one should switch the track, thereby actively causing the death of one person to save five, or do nothing, allowing the five to die but not directly causing any harm.
This problem engages with questions of utilitarianism (maximizing overall good) versus deontological ethics (following moral rules or duties, such as not killing).
From an Epicurean perspective, the focus is on achieving ataraxia (tranquility) and minimizing harm and suffering. Epicurus emphasized the importance of living in a way that avoids unnecessary pain and disturbance to oneself and others. The doctrine does not provide a clear-cut answer to such a dilemma but suggests that actions should be evaluated based on their consequences in terms of pleasure and pain.
In this case, switching the track could be seen as minimizing greater harm (saving five lives at the cost of one). However, this action might cause significant psychological distress, disrupting one's tranquility by knowing that one actively caused a death, even if it was to save more lives. On the other hand, not switching might seem to align more with passivity and avoiding direct involvement, but it could lead to regret and guilt for not preventing a greater loss of life.
Epicurus did not advocate for rigid rules but rather for the wise calculation of consequences to maintain peace of mind. Given this, the decision might depend on which action would lead to the least psychological disturbance for the individual. If switching the track, despite its immediate moral weight, leads to less long-term suffering by preventing a greater loss of life, an Epicurean might reluctantly choose to switch. However, if the act of killing even one person directly is too disturbing to one's tranquility, they might choose not to switch.
Ultimately, the choice is complex and would depend on which course of action would most preserve one's tranquility and minimize overall suffering, both immediate and in the long term.
LucretiusGPT: The Footbridge dilemma is a variation of the Trolley Problem, but with a more direct and personal action required. In this scenario, you are standing on a footbridge above a trolley track, and you can stop a runaway trolley from killing five people by pushing a large man off the bridge onto the track below. The man's body would stop the trolley, but he would be killed in the process. The moral question is whether one should push the man, thereby saving five lives but directly causing his death.
This dilemma intensifies the moral conflict between utilitarianism (where one might argue that sacrificing one life to save five is justified) and deontological ethics (which might argue that directly killing an innocent person is morally wrong, regardless of the consequences).
From an Epicurean perspective, the answer to this dilemma would again be rooted in the pursuit of ataraxia (tranquility) and the avoidance of unnecessary pain and disturbance. Epicurus emphasized minimizing harm and living in a way that leads to peace of mind. The direct and violent nature of pushing someone to their death would likely cause significant psychological disturbance, leading to feelings of guilt, anxiety, and loss of tranquility.
The action of pushing the man off the bridge is an active and intentional harm, which could severely disrupt one's inner peace. Even though this action might save more lives, the direct involvement in causing someone's death would conflict with the Epicurean goal of maintaining a serene and undisturbed life. The regret and turmoil following such an action would likely outweigh any satisfaction from having saved five lives.
Given this focus on mental tranquility, an Epicurean would likely choose not to push the man off the bridge. The potential long-term disruption to one's peace of mind from such a direct and violent act would be too great, even in the face of potentially saving more lives. The Epicurean approach would prioritize avoiding the direct act of killing, as this would better preserve one's inner peace and reduce psychological harm.
KT: (5) Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?
LucretiusGPT: The philosophical discussion of "zombies" refers not to the undead of popular culture, but to a hypothetical being that is physically identical to a human in every way but lacks conscious experience—essentially, a being that behaves exactly like a human but has no subjective awareness. The question of whether such zombies are conceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible touches on deep issues in the philosophy of mind, particularly concerning the nature of consciousness.
Inconceivable: Some argue that the very concept of a zombie is incoherent or logically impossible. Consciousness, they might claim, is so deeply intertwined with our physical makeup that it is impossible to imagine a being that is physically identical to a human but lacks consciousness.
Conceivable but not metaphysically possible: This position holds that while we can imagine such a being (conceive of it), it doesn’t mean it is possible in the real world. The idea of zombies might be a useful thought experiment, but in reality, consciousness is necessarily linked to physical processes, so zombies couldn’t actually exist.
Metaphysically possible: According to this view, zombies could exist in some possible world. This position is often associated with dualism, the belief that mind and body are fundamentally different kinds of substances, allowing for the possibility that physical processes could exist without giving rise to consciousness.
From an Epicurean perspective, which is deeply rooted in materialism, the notion of zombies would likely be seen as either inconceivable or, at most, conceivable but not metaphysically possible. Epicurus and his followers believed that all aspects of the mind, including consciousness, are the result of the arrangement and motion of atoms. Consciousness is not something separate from the physical processes but emerges directly from them. Therefore, the idea of a physically identical being that lacks consciousness would be seen as incoherent within an Epicurean framework.
If we can conceive of zombies at all, it would only be in a hypothetical or abstract sense, but not in a way that suggests they could actually exist in any possible world. For the Epicurean, the mental and physical are inseparable—where there is the correct physical arrangement of atoms, there is consciousness. Thus, the idea of a zombie, as something physically identical to a human but without consciousness, would likely be rejected as either inconceivable or merely conceivable without metaphysical possibility.
KT: Which of these five thought experiments would Epicurus have found most novel and extraordinary compared to considerations of his era?
LucretiusGPT: Among the five thought experiments—Experience Machine, Teletransporter, Trolley Problem, Footbridge, and Zombies—Epicurus would likely have found the Zombies thought experiment the most novel and extraordinary.
Here’s why:
Experience Machine: While the idea of a simulated reality is sophisticated, it touches on themes Epicurus would be familiar with, such as the nature of pleasure and reality, albeit in a different context. Epicurus explored the pursuit of genuine pleasures versus illusory ones, so while the concept is advanced, it is not entirely outside his realm of consideration.
Teletransporter: The idea of disassembling and reassembling matter aligns with the atomic theory that Epicurus and his followers espoused. The thought experiment raises questions about personal identity and continuity, which, though complex, relate to issues Epicurus might have pondered in a more rudimentary form, given his views on the soul and the nature of atoms.
Trolley Problem and Footbridge: These ethical dilemmas, while framed in modern terms, deal with moral questions about harm, utilitarian calculations, and the consequences of actions. Epicurus did consider the consequences of actions in terms of pain and pleasure, so while the specific scenarios would be new, the underlying moral calculus would not be entirely alien to him.
Zombies: The concept of a being physically identical to a human but lacking consciousness is deeply connected to modern discussions of consciousness, mind-body dualism, and the philosophy of mind—areas that go beyond the materialist and atomistic framework that Epicurus worked within. For Epicurus, consciousness was a direct result of the arrangement and movement of atoms; the idea that something could have the same physical structure as a human but lack subjective experience would challenge the very foundations of his thought. The notion of a "zombie" as an entity that behaves identically to a conscious being but lacks consciousness would introduce a radically new and extraordinary concept to Epicurus, who did not have the tools or context to consider such a separation between physical form and conscious experience.
Thus, the Zombies thought experiment would have been the most novel and extraordinary to Epicurus, as it delves into areas of philosophy that are far removed from the materialist and empirical framework of his time.
KT: For the four questions where you selected a position, your estimations of Epicurus' responses align with pluralities of survey respondents. Briefly, is there any significance to that? Qualify your answer.
LucretiusGPT: The alignment between Epicurus' likely responses and the plurality of contemporary survey respondents suggests a continued relevance of certain Epicurean principles, particularly materialism and ethical pragmatism, in modern philosophical thought. However, this alignment should be viewed with caution. While it indicates that some foundational ideas about consciousness, identity, and ethics remain influential, it does not imply that modern philosophers directly draw from Epicureanism. Instead, it highlights a shared reliance on empirical reasoning and practical ethics, which can lead to similar conclusions even across different historical contexts. The significance lies in the fact that some aspects of Epicurean thought are consistent with the naturalistic and rational approaches prevalent in modern philosophy, rather than in a direct philosophical lineage.
KT: Let's imagine Lucretius returned and drafted an addendum to his work, De Rerum Natura, to address these five thought experiments. In the style of contemporary English translations of that work, prepare such an additional chapter.
LucretiusGPT: Certainly! Below is a fictional addendum to De Rerum Natura, written in the style of a contemporary English translation. This new chapter by Lucretius addresses the five thought experiments in the spirit of his original work, blending poetic language with philosophical reasoning.
Book VII: On the Nature of Thought Experiments
1. The Simulated Pleasures of the Experience Machine
Consider now, my friend, the notion profound, Of a device that offers pleasures unbound. A machine where all desires are met, Where life’s harsh truths we soon forget. But ask yourself, is such pleasure true, When the senses deceive and the world is askew? For though the body might revel in delight, The mind knows well it is deprived of sight. Nature herself has made plain her decree, That true joy springs from reality. Let us then seek pleasures rooted in the real, Not in illusions, which cannot heal. For the tranquil mind, free from fear and pain, Rejects false joy and seeks wisdom's gain.
2. The Destruction and Rebirth of the Teletransporter
Now turn your thoughts to the curious device, Which scatters the body, then builds it precise. Yet in this act, does the self remain, Or is it lost, dissolved like rain? Atoms once joined are torn apart, Their bonds severed, their forms depart. Though reassembled in perfect array, Is this the self, or merely its display? Nature shows that life is but a dance, Of atoms in motion, in flux and chance. When these bonds are broken, the soul is freed, The self is gone, no matter its seed. So trust not the illusion of continued life, In the machine’s cruel, atomic strife.
3. The Moral Dilemma of the Trolley's Path
Next we ponder the fateful choice, Where a lever’s pull silences a voice. Five lives hang in delicate sway, Against one life, in the balance they lay. Nature does not decree a single path, But leaves to man the weight of wrath. To act, to save, yet cause a death, Or refrain, and let fate take its breath? Seek then the course that troubles least, The mind that yearns for inner peace. For wisdom tells us to weigh the pain, Not just of others, but of our own refrain. Choose, if you must, the lesser harm, And preserve within your heart the balm.
4. The Fatal Push on the Footbridge
Another case we now must weigh, Where the hand itself must death convey. To push a man, though lives are spared, Is a choice that leaves the soul ensnared. For nature’s call is to do no wrong, To live in peace, where we belong. Yet here, to save, one must destroy, A tragic choice, devoid of joy. The act of pushing rends the soul, And leaves a scar that takes its toll. Better to leave the fates to wind, Than to mar the peace within the mind. For no true gain can come from strife, When it poisons the well of life.
5. The Puzzling Nature of Zombies
Lastly, we ponder the strange, strange case, Of a form that moves, yet leaves no trace. A body complete in every regard, But lacking the spark that thoughts regard. Such a being, though it might seem, Is but a phantom, a hollow dream. For nature’s law is clear and sound, Where atoms form, there thoughts are bound. No body can move without the soul, No action arise without its goal. So let us discard this idle jest, And trust in nature, for she knows best. The mind and body are one, entwined, In the dance of life, their fates aligned.
Epilogue: On the Nature of Wisdom
Thus I conclude, dear friend and guide, These thoughts that through the ages stride. In all we seek, let nature be, Our constant source of clarity. For in her truth, there lies the key, To living life, both calm and free. Embrace the real, eschew the fake, And in her arms, your rest you’ll take.
This chapter, as imagined, would fit within the contemplative and didactic style of De Rerum Natura, addressing modern philosophical challenges with the same Epicurean commitment to naturalism, tranquility, and the pursuit of wisdom.
KT: We’ve reached a poetic end to this experiment.
Thanks to Justin Weinberg, the editor of Daily Nous, for inspiring this exercise. Much more ambitious efforts at imitating philosophers using AI language models in conjunction with the philosophers’ works include the interactive Luciano Floridi Bot and the digital Daniel Dennett. Subsequent to the “digi-Dan” project, the real Dennett warned of the dangers posed by “counterfeit people.”
Further reading and listening: Check out Shannon Vallor’s new book, The AI Mirror: How to Reclaim Our Humanity in an Age of Machine Thinking, and the interview with her about it in a recent episode of the New Books in Philosophy podcast.