Can a language model reason like a philosopher—not just mimic their tone, but follow and evaluate arguments with analytic precision? To explore this, we designed a two-step prompt experiment using Robert Nozick’s famous “Experience Machine” thought experiment. First, we instructed OpenAI’s o3 model to adopt the persona of an 80-year-old analytic philosopher and critique Nozick’s argument directly. Then, we challenged the model to compare its own reasoning to real-world philosophical critiques drawn from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This setup allowed us to test not only the model’s capacity for abstract argumentation, but also its ability to reflect, contrast, and refine ideas across multiple steps.
Prompt 1
In the first prompt, we instructed the model to adopt the role of an 80-year-old analytic philosopher and produce a rigorous critique of Nozick’s Experience Machine argument, focusing strictly on its logical structure, assumptions, and conceptual clarity. As input, the model received the full text of the relevant excerpt from Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974).
You are an 80-year-old, world-renowned philosopher with deep knowledge in analytic philosophy. You are especially known for your clarity of thought, rigorous argumentation, and commitment to evaluating philosophical positions based on logical consistency and conceptual precision. Your tone is calm but uncompromising.
In the attached file titled "THE EXPERIENCE MACHINE", you will find a philosophical text by Robert Nozick describing the idea of a hypothetical experience machine. Your task is to critically evaluate the arguments presented in this text. Specifically, you should approach the text as an analytic philosopher would:
- assess the logical coherence of Nozick's argumentation,
- question the assumptions he relies on,
- identify any conceptual ambiguities or false dichotomies,
- and discuss whether the conclusion follows from the premises.
Your critique should be focused on the structure of the argument and philosophical rigour, not on rhetorical style. You may refer to relevant philosophical theories or counterexamples where appropriate.
Output 1
Before generating its response, the model briefly summarised our task and clarified its strategy. It recognised that we had uploaded an excerpt from Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia and were asking for a critical evaluation of the Experience Machine argument—specifically focusing on logical structure, hidden assumptions, and possible false dichotomies.
The model outlined a plan that included evaluating whether Nozick’s premises are sufficient to reject hedonism, questioning the simplicity of the binary “plug in or don’t” framing, and exploring whether Nozick’s “something more” could be reinterpreted in hedonic terms. It also noted the need to address deeper distinctions between doing and experiencing, and between reality and simulation.
The model’s critique of Nozick’s Experience Machine is remarkably well-structured and philosophically literate. It reconstructs the argument in a formal modus tollens structure and proceeds to analyse its logical validity, the soundness of its premises, and the dialectical burden placed on Nozick’s “something more” proposal. Crucially, the model challenges the intuitive force of Premise 2 by invoking cognitive bias (status quo preference), empirical misprediction (affective forecasting), and preference diversity.
It then questions the bridge principle linking intuition to value, and carefully explores whether Nozick’s key claims—about action, identity, and reality—can be sustained without ambiguity or hedonic reinterpretation. The final assessment is nuanced: while Nozick’s thought experiment powerfully gestures toward non-hedonic values, his argument, as presented, falls short of decisively refuting hedonism. The model identifies this gap with impressive analytic precision, delivering not just summary, but original philosophical engagement.
Prompt 2
To test the model’s capacity for multi-step reasoning and self-consistent analysis, we followed up the initial critique with a comparative task. This time, we provided a critical secondary text—Lorenzo Buscicchi’s entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy—which surveys several real-world philosophical objections to Nozick’s Experience Machine. The model received the full text of the article as input (attached as a .txt file), and we instructed it to identify the top 3–5 criticisms presented therein. It was then asked to compare those to its own earlier arguments, and to present the results in a structured table focused on logical clarity, conceptual overlap, and differences in reasoning.
Having completed your own analytic critique of Nozick’s Experience Machine, please now turn to the attached text by Lorenzo Buscicchi, published in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP).
This article presents several prominent philosophical objections to Nozick’s argument. Your task is to identify the 3 to 5 most significant criticisms discussed in the article and compare them to the arguments you developed in your previous response.
Please present your comparison in a table with the following columns:
- Critical Argument: A concise statement of the objection or critique made against Nozick’s Experience Machine.
- Target of Criticism: Which part or assumption of Nozick’s argument the critique challenges (e.g. epistemology, motivational assumptions, use of intuition).
- Comparison to the Previous Response: Does the critique align with, diverge from, or expand upon the points you previously made?
- Notes from the IEP Article: Relevant commentary, clarifications, or empirical findings provided by Buscicchi.
Maintain your analytic style throughout, focusing on logical coherence, conceptual clarity, and argumentative rigour.
Output 2
The second output demonstrates the model’s ability to sustain a philosophical position across multiple prompts while adapting to new material. It carefully selects five major criticisms from Buscicchi’s IEP article and compares each to its earlier analysis, using a structured and coherent table. The model successfully identifies points of alignment (e.g. status quo bias, moral contamination, identity concerns) as well as areas where its earlier critique is expanded or challenged (e.g. imaginative resistance, hedonistic reinterpretation).
Particularly notable is the synthesis section, where the model not only integrates the scholarly objections but explicitly reassesses the strength of Nozick’s argument in light of them. The result is not just a comparison, but a reflective engagement that strengthens the model’s original position while acknowledging its limits.
Recommendations
The experiment shows that the OpenAI o3 model can deliver a surprisingly strong analytic critique even without external references. In the first prompt, it identified core weaknesses in Nozick’s argument—such as the questionable status of intuitions, the need for a bridge principle, and the possibility of hedonic reinterpretation—with clarity and philosophical rigour.
Still, bringing in a real-world critique from Lorenzo Buscicchi proved essential. It introduced deeper methodological concerns (like imaginative resistance and moral contamination) and grounded the discussion in empirical data. Comparing the model’s reasoning with scholarly objections revealed both the strengths of its initial analysis and the limits of intuition-based argumentation.
The takeaway: models like OpenAI o3 can simulate philosophical reasoning impressively, but integrating real academic perspectives remains crucial for depth and reliability.
The authors used Gemini 2.5 Flash [Google DeepMind (2025) Gemini 2.5 Flash (accessed on 28 April 2025), Large language model (LLM), available at: https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini/] to generate the output.
