|
|
Post by Killix on Jan 20, 2012 17:47:54 GMT -5
You get the money tomorrow morning if you intend to drink the potion at midnight tonight. You have to intend first. Then you get the money. But keep in mind, your plan isn't actually to take the toxin. Your plan is an elaborate setup to avoid taking the toxin, even if you don't write it down that way on paper. Ah crud, you're right. I had to re-re-re-read that over again. Seems I did misread that part about getting the money tomorrow morning. *facepalm* but no, the plan I came up with in the last post was how to take the toxin in little tiny doses at a time. If that was my plan, it is something that I would possibly go through with. It is not an elaborate plan to avoid drinking the toxin. Sure it avoids the effect of the toxin if I do end up drinking it, but I still intend to drink it. If this puzzle is actually set up so that you literally can't get the money if you don't honestly at some point intend to go through with drinking the toxin...  Does he have psychic powers or something that he knows you're being honest? (Maybe he's friends with that fortune teller.) Because in a real life situation, there would be no way for him to know. |
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jan 20, 2012 18:10:32 GMT -5
You get the money tomorrow morning if you intend to drink the potion at midnight tonight. You have to intend first. Then you get the money. But keep in mind, your plan isn't actually to take the toxin. Your plan is an elaborate setup to avoid taking the toxin, even if you don't write it down that way on paper. Ah crud, you're right. I had to re-re-re-read that over again. Seems I did misread that part about getting the money tomorrow morning. *facepalm* but no, the plan I came up with in the last post was how to take the toxin in little tiny doses at a time. If that was my plan, it is something that I would possibly go through with. It is not an elaborate plan to avoid drinking the toxin. Sure it avoids the effect of the toxin if I do end up drinking it, but I still intend to drink it. If this puzzle is actually set up so that you literally can't get the money if you don't honestly at some point intend to go through with drinking the toxin... Does he have psychic powers or something that he knows you're being honest? (Maybe he's friends with that fortune teller.) Because in a real life situation, there would be no way for him to know. It's a hypothetical situation. If it was real life, no billionaire would ever do this. xDD |
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Jan 20, 2012 18:55:47 GMT -5
It's a hypothetical situation. If it was real life, no billionaire would ever do this. xDD Well, yeah. Even an "eccentric" billionaire wouldn't bother with something this pointless. XD That and the fact that it's an impossible situation makes it too silly to take seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jan 20, 2012 19:09:21 GMT -5
It's a hypothetical situation. If it was real life, no billionaire would ever do this. xDD Well, yeah. Even an "eccentric" billionaire wouldn't bother with something this pointless. XD That and the fact that it's an impossible situation makes it too silly to take seriously. Plenty of people take plenty of silly things seriously. xD I seem to recall though, that the main point of it was supposed to be that you can't actually ever intend to do something that is not beneficial in any way. Personally I think the whole argument is a bit weird and strung together, but. Partly because it relies on you acting in a perfectly rational manner, which is rare enough in anyone. xD |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jan 20, 2012 19:54:51 GMT -5
I think it is possible to rationally intend to endure painful suffering in order to get a reward.
I think intention is committed in the heart, but often it is difficult to judge the honesty of such intentions. So look at the actions which come about. Actions flow from intentions as helplessly as fruit fall from trees. If you decide to pick up a pen, you pick up the pen, you don't stop to think for no reason of not picking up your pen, you just do it. Intervening events may interrupt the action, or prompt a reassessment of what to do, but my view is that honest intention when left to its own devices naturally leads to action.
The dilemma for me here is that you seem to want to try to find a way of intending to drink the poison, while also intending to change your mind at the last moment. That for me means that I didn't honestly intend to drink the poison. Because I'd notice that, I'd then have to tell myself two things - "I intend to drink the poison AND I intend not to change my mind." And I can't honestly make that statement while thinking that I'll go back on what I've decided. It really is impossible for me to intend to do something while also intending not to do it. That is a contradiction. You cannot intend to do two mutually opposed actions simultaneously.
And if you think of reassessing your decision later, then you're actually doing the reassessment right now while you're thinking of it. Because the only reason you'd want to reassess your decision is to get out of drinking the poison.
So in order to really mean it, you'd have to put the possibility of getting away with not drinking the poison completely out of your mind. Difficult, but doable, I think.
For me, I'd probably have a bit an honour thing about keeping to my word.
Midnight: "Yes I will drink the poison, and I do not intend to change my mind about the matter."
Morning: How dare I make myself a liar? *drinks poison*
|
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jan 21, 2012 7:04:12 GMT -5
I think it is possible to rationally intend to endure painful suffering in order to get a reward. I think intention is committed in the heart, but often it is difficult to judge the honesty of such intentions. So look at the actions which come about. Actions flow from intentions as helplessly as fruit fall from trees. If you decide to pick up a pen, you pick up the pen, you don't stop to think for no reason of not picking up your pen, you just do it. Intervening events may interrupt the action, or prompt a reassessment of what to do, but my view is that honest intention when left to its own devices naturally leads to action. The dilemma for me here is that you seem to want to try to find a way of intending to drink the poison, while also intending to change your mind at the last moment. That for me means that I didn't honestly intend to drink the poison. Because I'd notice that, I'd then have to tell myself two things - "I intend to drink the poison AND I intend not to change my mind." And I can't honestly make that statement while thinking that I'll go back on what I've decided. It really is impossible for me to intend to do something while also intending not to do it. That is a contradiction. You cannot intend to do two mutually opposed actions simultaneously. And if you think of reassessing your decision later, then you're actually doing the reassessment right now while you're thinking of it. Because the only reason you'd want to reassess your decision is to get out of drinking the poison. So in order to really mean it, you'd have to put the possibility of getting away with not drinking the poison completely out of your mind. Difficult, but doable, I think. For me, I'd probably have a bit an honour thing about keeping to my word. Midnight: "Yes I will drink the poison, and I do not intend to change my mind about the matter." Morning: How dare I make myself a liar? *drinks poison* I would agree with most of that. I think the argument is that if you're being rational, then once you get the money you wouldn't choose to take the toxin, so then you can't really intend to do it in the first place (which creates a paradox). But since the long term guilt of making money from lying could easily outweigh the short term pain of taking the toxin, you could rationally choose to take it. And in any case, since it still relies on people being rational, I think that the argument is too specific to be of any use to anyone. The only thing I would disagree with is saying that if you intend to do something, it will automatically happen. What you intend may turn out to be impossible, or you might just end up procrastinating. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Jan 23, 2012 14:45:39 GMT -5
Newcomb's paradox states this: There is fortune teller. The fortune teller has a reputation for never being wrong, though that doesn't mean he's infallible. He poses to you a game. There are two boxes, box A and box B. You are asked to pick either box B only, or both box A and box B. Box A contains one-hundred dollars, regardless of whatever happens next. Box B contains one-thousand dollars if the fortune-teller has predicted you will pick only box B, but if he has predicted that you will pick both boxes, box B will be empty. The game has begun, the contents of the box have been decided, and there's no way to change them. What do you do? So basically the future is already determined. It's either World 1 or World 2, I don't know which world it is, and nothing I do is gonna change that. World 1: Fortune teller has predicted that I'll pick both boxes, so Box A contains $100 and Box B is empty. Choice A in World 1: I pick both boxes and get $100. Choice B in World 1: I pick Box B and get nothing. World 2: Fortune teller has predicted that I'll pick Box B, so Box A contains $100 and Box B contains $1000. Choice A in World 2: I pick both boxes and get $1100. Choice B in World 2: I pick Box B and get $1000. Regardless of which world it is, the better choice is pretty obvious I think. =P I don't get how it is a paradox / how there could be any dilemma. Can someone explain this paradox to me? The billionaire's challenge though would cause a dilemma. XD I laughed IRL reading people's efforts to simultaneously intend and not intend. Me, I don't think I could intend. I mean I'd try, obviously, but I'm bound to end up not actually intending. So if the billionaire were psychic he'd know I was ultimately lying. But if he isn't psychic, then... 8D Although, Jina, I personally wouldn't experience any guilt for lying to a sadistic billionaire. So if it's a simple choice between "long term guilt of making money from lying" and "short term pain of taking the toxin," I'd rather avoid the pain. >.> |
|
|
|
Post by Jina on Jan 23, 2012 15:13:59 GMT -5
Newcomb's paradox states this: There is fortune teller. The fortune teller has a reputation for never being wrong, though that doesn't mean he's infallible. He poses to you a game. There are two boxes, box A and box B. You are asked to pick either box B only, or both box A and box B. Box A contains one-hundred dollars, regardless of whatever happens next. Box B contains one-thousand dollars if the fortune-teller has predicted you will pick only box B, but if he has predicted that you will pick both boxes, box B will be empty. The game has begun, the contents of the box have been decided, and there's no way to change them. What do you do? So basically the future is already determined. It's either World 1 or World 2, I don't know which world it is, and nothing I do is gonna change that. World 1: Fortune teller has predicted that I'll pick both boxes, so Box A contains $100 and Box B is empty. Choice A in World 1: I pick both boxes and get $100. Choice B in World 1: I pick Box B and get nothing. World 2: Fortune teller has predicted that I'll pick Box B, so Box A contains $100 and Box B contains $1000. Choice A in World 2: I pick both boxes and get $1100. Choice B in World 2: I pick Box B and get $1000. Regardless of which world it is, the better choice is pretty obvious I think. =P I don't get how it is a paradox / how there could be any dilemma. Can someone explain this paradox to me? Because if you assume that the fortune teller will always predict accurately (based on their history), box B is the better option. They're both sensible ways of deciding, and also both give different answers. Although, Jina, I personally wouldn't experience any guilt for lying to a sadistic billionaire. So if it's a simple choice between "long term guilt of making money from lying" and "short term pain of taking the toxin," I'd rather avoid the pain. >.> Well, that's a question of personal moral beliefs really, some people would, some people wouldn't. Although he isn't necessarily sadistic, he is giving you a lot of money, after all. =P Depends on his reasons, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Jan 23, 2012 16:33:41 GMT -5
Because if you assume that the fortune teller will always predict accurately (based on their history), box B is the better option. They're both sensible ways of deciding, and also both give different answers. O! I get it now. So the other line of thought would go something like: Choice A: I pick both boxes. 99% probability that I get $100, and 1% probability that I get $1100. Choice B: I pick Box B. 99% probability that I get $1000, and 1% probability that I get $0. In which case Choice B would seem more rational. I think it was the idea of "fortune tellers can't really predict the future; they're just scammers or entertainers" that messed with my thought process. Maybe if the fortune teller were changed to a supercomputer or something, that might have an impact on people's responses. Well, that's a question of personal moral beliefs really, some people would, some people wouldn't. Although he isn't necessarily sadistic, he is giving you a lot of money, after all. =P Depends on his reasons, I suppose. True. XD But there's something kinda evil about giving someone a high incentive to seriously consider to hurt themselves, dontcha think? Idk. =P |
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Apr 18, 2012 12:36:59 GMT -5
Wikipedia has a nice little analysis on Kavka's toxin puzzle. It's a shame one can't throw in other actions to destroy the entire scenario, such as punching the billionaire and stealing all his money. It's the rebellious Dungeon & Dragons player within me.  |
|
