[PL 431] One's modus ponens is another's modus tollens

Robert Nozick's thought experiment about the experience machine is supposed to show that motivational hedonism, i.e., the view that we are motivated only by pleasure and pain, is false. The argument is supposed to go roughly like this:

1. Motivational hedonism is true only if we would want to plug into the experience machine.
2. We would not want to plug into the experience machine because we want to do certain things, we want to be a certain way, and we want to be in contact with reality.
3. Therefore, motivational hedonism is false.

The force of the argument comes from Nozick's intuition that we would not want to plug into the experience machine. But suppose one doesn't share that intuition. Suppose one thinks that it would be great to plug into the experience machine. After all, one gets to experience everything one wants to experience without ever breaking a sweat; all from the comfort of one's home. Sounds like a dream come true!

If so, then one could argue as follows:

1. If we would want to plug into the experience machine, then motivational hedonism is true.
2. We would want to plug into the experience machine because we will get to experience everything we want to experience from the comfort of our home without breaking a sweat (and our wallet).
3. Therefore, motivational hedonism is true.

Both arguments are valid. Which do you find more convincing?