- This topic has 32 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@xdc the doc wrote:
Stop trying to anthropomorphize him neon… imagine it is a machine if you will. You cant add things like motivation into a pure thought experiment!
True, but then the thought experiment becomes nothing more than straight forward gambling.
One choice gives you even odds that you will make some money.
The other choice will give you odds of 2/1 against making 1 million.
Then it’s down to the personality of the person being offered the choice. Are they a risk taker or somebody who likes to play it safe? But at the end of the day nobody has anything to lose by taking part, and only something to gain.
However, if the choice was this:
Box 1 – Contains antidotes to the poison given to you and your wife -guarenteed-
Box 2 – May contain the antidotes for your whole family including your kidsThen the motivation for your choices change. As a parent who wouldn’t take the option of box 2?
@=XDC=NeonSamurai wrote:
@xdc the doc wrote:
Stop trying to anthropomorphize him neon… imagine it is a machine if you will. You cant add things like motivation into a pure thought experiment!
True, but then the thought experiment becomes nothing more than straight forward gambling.
One choice gives you even odds that you will make some money.
The other choice will give you odds of 2/1 against making 1 million.
Then it’s down to the personality of the person being offered the choice. Are they a risk taker or somebody who likes to play it safe? But at the end of the day nobody has anything to lose by taking part, and only something to gain.
However, if the choice was this:
Box 1 – Contains antidotes to the poison given to you and your wife -guarenteed-
Box 2 – May contain the antidotes for your whole family including your kidsThen the motivation for your choices change. As a parent who wouldn’t take the option of box 2?
The argument is neon…. it doesent matter what is in the box – antidotes or whatever… there IS NO GAMBLE involved, If you are standing in front of the 2 boxes – take both! Doing so you might save yourself and wife…. you might save the whole family who knows? All I know for sure is… you aint going to help matters by taking box 2. Just taking box 2 only will mean that you might save your whole family… but there is a slight chance you wont…. but without any advantage to yourself.
The argument is neon…. it doesent matter what is in the box – antidotes or whatever… there IS NO GAMBLE involved, If you are standing in front of the 2 boxes – take both! Doing so you might save yourself and wife…. you might save the whole family who knows? All I know for sure is… you aint going to help matters by taking box 2. Just taking box 2 only will mean that you might save your whole family… but there is a slight chance you wont…. but without any advantage to yourself.
Sure, but then that’s looking at the problem in a purely logical way. Logically taking both is the correct answer since you are guarenteed to gain something. But humans are not motivated purely by logic (which is something a supreme being would have to take into account).
What I’m saying is that people will give a different answer to the question you asked regarding the money, to the question I asked regarding their families, even though logically they should take both boxes since it’s no longer about what they gain but what they lose.
Thats not really what i am trying to say… it not about what you gain or what you lose… if its logical to take both boxes its logical… theres no way that bringing emotions into it is going to change what is right or wrong.
What Im trying to say is… it doesent matter what is in either box… it doesent matter how much you want one or other object… if you only take one box you have made an illogical (perhaps foolish) decision with no possibility of gain for yourself – whilst exposing yourself to some unecessary risk.
i can’t stand deal or no deal…………..very irritating, the Italian version which my parents watch on sat.tv is even more annoying that the Brit version 😈
But like I say then it’s purely logical and if it’s simply logic then it’s not a question, but a statement. Obviously the question regarding the boxes depends on what you get out of it. To us money is a commodity we recognise and value therefore we are driven by our need to obtain it (or at least for the purposes of this question).
If what was being offered made next to no difference to you then people would answer differently. For example:
Box A contains a T Shirt for an AIDS sufferer
Box B might (or might not) contain a cureOne offers something practically worthless, but the other offers something unobtainable. If what’s in box A is of no interest to you then you are taking it simply because you can then you are motivated by a need to own things regardless of what they are.
My point is that the question is a logical one that has to be interpreted by the motivations and the circumstances of the individual. If the amount in box A was changed to £5 and box B might or might not contain £50000 then I guess the people on this forum might be more inclined to take a chance. Logically they should choose £5 but would that make much of a difference in their lives if they won or lost it? But most would probably take a 50/50 chance to get £50000.
Except Pharty who probably spent that on gin this morning.
@=XDC=NeonSamurai wrote:
But like I say then it’s purely logical and if it’s simply logic then it’s not a question, but a statement. Obviously the question regarding the boxes depends on what you get out of it. To us money is a commodity we recognise and value therefore we are driven by our need to obtain it (or at least for the purposes of this question).
If what was being offered made next to no difference to you then people would answer differently. For example:
Box A contains a T Shirt for an AIDS sufferer
Box B might (or might not) contain a cureOne offers something practically worthless, but the other offers something unobtainable. If what’s in box A is of no interest to you then you are taking it simply because you can then you are motivated by a need to own things regardless of what they are.
My point is that the question is a logical one that has to be interpreted by the motivations and the circumstances of the individual. If the amount in box A was changed to £5 and box B might or might not contain £50000 then I guess the people on this forum might be more inclined to take a chance. Logically they should choose £5 but would that make much of a difference in their lives if they won or lost it? But most would probably take a 50/50 chance to get £50000.
Except Pharty who probably spent that on gin this morning.
Lol – my rhetorical skills may not be up to the task here.
Neon – if there was a 50/50 chance of something that would totally change the scenario – where does that come from? There is no chance involved here. Just simple logic. For thought experiments like these you need to go along with the internal rules that apply to them – so you cant make one of the boxes completely worthless, and you cant decide that the 2nd box has a 50/50 chance of being full of goodies. Any change to the scenarios internal structure and you invalidate the whole premise!
Neon in theory, in the question, the money has been planted whichever motivation you take.
I dont think that it is suggested that box 1 is undesirable in any way. It still holds a reward whereas Box 2 may hold a better one or may not hold anything at all. The question is put that the being has already assumed what you will do and either added nothing (box 1 option) or added the million (box 2 option)
Where this now becomes a paradox is simply put as this.
You chose option 1 :
the being guessed you would choose option 1 and removed the money from box 2
the being guessed you would choose option 2 and placed the money in box 2
You choose option 2 :
the being guessed you would choose option 2 and placed the money in box 2
the being guessed you would choose option 1 and removed the money from box 2
based on the principles of free will and the fact that the choice was made for you at a pre-determined time and you must assume that even the £1000 is a reward then you will lose nothing in determining option 1. The theory here is that your choice has been made for you beforehand regardless of what your principles or motivations may be in choosing the options you have afterwards.
dagnamed philisophy!
anyone smell cat food??I guess I’m missing the point here. Are you saying that box 2 will always be empty if you choose it?
nope. it may be empty it may not.
Its a paradox as it wont make a difference if you choose option 1 or 2
the choice has already been made but there is no way of knowing that
choice because our free will will make us decide after the event and that can’t be 100%
predicted. In the same way that the higher being can’t predict 100% the choice you will makeI’d smash the supreme being in the face with Neon’s telescope and take his million anyway.
Then I’d turn to camera and say
“He didn’t predict that!” in an Austrian accent.
Only some workshy philosopher could come up with that load of bollocks, probably a fucking student.
@CowboyUK wrote:
Only some workshy philosopher could come up with that load of bollocks, probably a fucking student.
yeah and I hope his cat dies 🙂
I’d take both. Your decision does not alter what’s in the boxes as the decision has already been made. Of course that means that it’s almost certainly going to be empty because it’s illogical to miss out on a certain gain for a possible one. So that means that a logical decision can never yield the full reward and oh my god my eyes have gone crossed. Happy now Doc? /me takes a swing at the Doc and punches out the window he’s standing next to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.