|
On July 19 2010 10:51 HalfAmazing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 10:41 RhaegarBeast wrote: Yeah, the popular game theory problem with a similar name says that defection is preferrable. But this is different. If you like to think in game theory, you can imagine that you are each others Nemesis. What then? Not true. The best long term approach is is a nice, forgiving, but retaliating strategy. The reason for this is that you only lose a little bit when you play a 'cheat', as you instantly retaliate, but rack up the points when matched with another nice player. This is the most profitable strategy over time, although a cheat would beat you in a single game.
What you're saying is irrelevant since a prisoners dilemma that is repeated several times =\= a one off prisoners dilemma. You are no more right since you are talking about two different games.
OT: I find this thread to be quite entertaining as it is getting increasingly obvious that OP has somehow fitted his whole philosophical view of the world into some riddle he heard ten years ago bit cannot really even remember!
Dilemmas usually centre around a hard or impossible choice but you have just detached all
meaning to all the words in the riddle and made your own "profound" world where the dilemma is inconsequential and it's suddenly about the meaning of life, what is death and so on, while there being no reason as to why this simple dilemma should be suitable for a discussion like this.
Imagine a train heading for a group of persons. They will all die unless you push a fat guy in front of the train. What do you do?
Before you consider: you have always stood here waiting for the train, the trainstation is a self contained universe and you have
never seen other people before, and you cannot know what death is. If you push him you also cease to exist. Maybe.
|
JinMaikeul you're correct that I'm at fault here. But I'm certain that you could appreciate the beauty of this exercise if you tried harder.
We should refer to this problem as the Magus Prison or something similar.
In my opinion solutions are in the area of math. Philosophy deals with understanding foreign concepts. Also - whoever accuses me of making a model of reality, that is not exactly like reality is being dumb (sorry?) in at least two ways. First - our whole science is based on models. Physicists don't calculate what happens with each quark on the road when they hit the breaks. They just have the model in their head and can guess how far the car will go before it stops. As I recall, a Nobel Prize in Economics was given to a guy, who came up with this model - "All people live to two years. Those less than 1 year old are young and have to work for money. Those older than 1 yo are old and live off their savings. The only job in this world is growing bananas, young people sell them for money and make savings. Old people just spend their savings. "
So that's the model and on this model he started asking questions like - "What would happen if the government decided to give out free money to everyone?" "What would happen in the real world?" "What would happen if they were all perfect logicians?"
Etc, etc... Nobel prize. In fact everything we learn is from models.
So, my point is that whoever doubts the usefulness of models has little understanding of how science and philosophy work.
Why do people make models? To gain insights. And that's why i posted this topic. I firmly believe that there are profound insights in this model. If you don't get it - try harder!
The second way in which someone is being dumb is by assuming that this is impossible.
If the first rule of philosophy is "I know that I don't know", then the second one should read "Everything is possible, until proven otherwise".
|
If you can't understand the difference between a functioning scientific or economic model and the one you've presented here, it's pretty clear that we're on two completely different wavelengths. First of all, if they want to see how long it takes for a car to stop after it hits the brakes, do you know what they do? They drive a car at the speed they want and they hit the brakes... That 60-0 number you see in your car's specs isn't something calculated by a physicist. While a physicist could certainly calculate it to a degree of accuracy, it's the result of realworld testing because they know that realworld testing is what actually matters. But I digress... The difference between both models you gave as examples and your model is first, the subject matter at hand. Two of them deal with empirical data and science (to an extend in economy) while yours is completely philosophical. The bigger difference, however, is the fact that the other two were created and employed for a specific purpose. This makes these models somewhat meaningful. You model, however, is simply the product of your curiosity. Despite your talk about the importance of models in gaining insight and wisdom, you've yet to actually tell us how the particular model you've proposed functions to that regard and why you believe it does.
I don't doubt the usefulness of models overall. I simply doubt the usefulness of YOUR particular model. You'll have to forgive me, but I fail to see what kind of insight I could possibly derive from your outlandish scenario. Perhaps you can enlighten me...
As for your comment about philosophy dealing with understanding foreign concepts, I would argue that this is not true at all. Philosophy deals very much with understanding our everyday lives, perhaps even more so than physics. You cannot separate philosophy from real-life experience because philosophy is completely based in our real-life experience. When you start bending the rules of the world or human nature, you essentially create a realm where one's philosophy must also bend to match those rules. Anything of philosophical value you may garner from such a world instantly loses its relevance in this one because the fundamental rules are different. Interestingly enough, the few philosophical questions I did actually ask you in response to your new rules happened to be the ones that you never responded to. You seem to be interested in the meaning of a solution to a problem without ever asking why, in your world, this is actually a problem in the first place. Also, philosophy isn't about entertaining whimsical ideas for the sake of doing so. If you've ever taken a philosophy class, you might be disappointed to find that you're required to have a reason for the ideas and beliefs that you hold and usually, the things you learned from a fantasy model far removed from reality don't apply. Philosophy and critical thinking go hand in hand to this regard. It's all an effort to discover and refine one's world view.
When did "love of knowledge" become "entertain every idea under the sun"?
|
On July 19 2010 19:36 RhaegarBeast wrote:
JinMaikeul you're correct that I'm at fault here. But I'm certain that you could appreciate the beauty of this exercise if you tried harder.
We should refer to this problem as the Magus Prison or something similar.
In my opinion solutions are in the area of math. Philosophy deals with understanding foreign concepts. Also - whoever accuses me of making a model of reality, that is not exactly like reality is being dumb (sorry?) in at least two ways. First - our whole science is based on models. Physicists don't calculate what happens with each quark on the road when they hit the breaks. They just have the model in their head and can guess how far the car will go before it stops. As I recall, a Nobel Prize in Economics was given to a guy, who came up with this model - "All people live to two years. Those less than 1 year old are young and have to work for money. Those older than 1 yo are old and live off their savings. The only job in this world is growing bananas, young people sell them for money and make savings. Old people just spend their savings. "
So that's the model and on this model he started asking questions like - "What would happen if the government decided to give out free money to everyone?" "What would happen in the real world?" "What would happen if they were all perfect logicians?"
Etc, etc... Nobel prize. In fact everything we learn is from models.
So, my point is that whoever doubts the usefulness of models has little understanding of how science and philosophy work.
Why do people make models? To gain insights. And that's why i posted this topic. I firmly believe that there are profound insights in this model. If you don't get it - try harder!
The second way in which someone is being dumb is by assuming that this is impossible.
If the first rule of philosophy is "I know that I don't know", then the second one should read "Everything is possible, until proven otherwise".
rambling [ˈræmblɪŋ]
adj
1. straggling or sprawling haphazardly; unplanned a rambling old house
2. (of speech or writing) lacking a coherent plan; diffuse and disconnected
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) (of a plant, esp a rose) profusely climbing and straggling
4. nomadic; wandering
what are you even talking about anymore?
you brought up morals, what defines us to be human, fear, good and evil, human nature, philosophy, scientific models, fear, and god knows what else. can you explain exactly how the problem you presented addresses any of these things?
|
I thought the version in Baldur's Gate 2 was where the other prisoner was your brother/sister? If you press the button, the other dies and you're free (and vice versa). If noone presses their button, you both die.
A wee bit tougher.
|
On July 19 2010 20:36 Captain Mayhem wrote:
I thought the version in Baldur's Gate 2 was where the other prisoner was your brother/sister? If you press the button, the other dies and you're free (and vice versa). If noone presses their button, you both die.
A wee bit tougher.
This. It's all well and good if you're freed at the cost of someone you never knew, but the point of the BG2 riddle was to make you decide whether you were going to kill your siblings and accept the power of your birthright or let yourself die in the cause. Or something like that. Great game though.
|
Hmm. I dont think this is prisoners dilemma?
It would have to be something like if both prisoners pulls the lever they both die, if both does not they both live but are still held in the prison, and finally if only one do, he survives and escapes and the other one dies.
So the dilemma is that if both only thinks of themselves they are doomed, if one person think for himself and the otherone does not, the former gets the most out of it, and if noone thinks of himself they both get sort of a good situation, but not the best.
|
"As for your comment about philosophy dealing with understanding foreign concepts, I would argue that this is not true at all. Philosophy deals very much with understanding our everyday lives, perhaps even more so than physics. You cannot separate philosophy from real-life experience because philosophy is completely based in our real-life experience. When you start bending the rules of the world or human nature, you essentially create a realm where one's philosophy must also bend to match those rules. "
With this I agree completely. The rest I find a bit offensive.
"Anything of philosophical value you may garner from such a world instantly loses its relevance in this one because the fundamental rules are different." See, I think this dilemma is a great metaphor for life on Earth right now. That's why I'm so absorbed with it. I guess this is where our differences arise from. From my life experience this dilemma is profound. From your point of view (and LE) it seems like it's pointless. I have no quarrel about that. What I would like though, would be for you to understand that this dilemma is quite real and important to me and that it is not impossible to become relevant to you as well.
You never know when the world will corner you into a shithole. What are you going to do then?
|
You're addicted to feeling philosophical but you are just rambling. Throwing around important-sounding words and trying to appear sagely and wise when you have absolutely nothing to say makes you look ridiculous.
Philosophy, science, game theory are serious subjects and you have to make an effort if you want to understand or discuss them. All you are doing here is posing. It's a disgrace. Freedom, morality, free will are difficult topics and your word salads are holding back the conversation.
If it is not intentional, then you are delusional. You tricked yourself into thinking you are profound. You are a pseudointelectual and you are wasting everybody's time.
|
Yeah, I get it - the name of the topic ruined everything. I have a knack for annoying people. With that said you're completely wrong in your assessment. My logic is sound. It's just that you are annoyed by some unknown who seems to be trying to impress people with his "genius" ideas. Damn. Keep in mind that I kept replying again and again to the topic, only because people requested more info and clarification and then some other people started to flame me. The whole purpose was to see how different people would react to the dilemma. I had no intention whatsoever of being condescending or anything. It's just that everyone keeps wanting me to tell them the solution and when I give them a solution that they haven't yet internalized themselves, they decide to believe that I'm the stupid one and not them. And here we are again.
But I don't mind. Actually, you make me a little proud of myself.
|
The lever has been pulled.
The mage can't lie, but one can deceive oneself as to the mage's meaning. Being lied to and deceiving oneself are not the same thing. Self-deception takes different forms for different people.
Illusion is necessary for enlightenment. If there is no illusion, there can be no enlightenment. Not all people become enlightened because not all people exist in an illusion.
|
On July 19 2010 21:05 Ota Solgryn wrote:
Hmm. I dont think this is prisoners dilemma?
It would have to be something like if both prisoners pulls the lever they both die, if both does not they both live but are still held in the prison, and finally if only one do, he survives and escapes and the other one dies.
So the dilemma is that if both only thinks of themselves they are doomed, if one person think for himself and the otherone does not, the former gets the most out of it, and if noone thinks of himself they both get sort of a good situation, but not the best.
I think you're right in stating the actual prisoner's dilemma.
I'd like to improve it with the following concept:
When prisoner A pulls the lever, prisoner B will be notified and has 1 hour the time to either pull his/her lever as well, or accept death. (And vice versa of course, and with both prisoners being aware of this 'rule')
Edit: pull his/her lever as well, or accept death pull his/her lever as well, or accept that the other prisoner escapes alive and being the only one to die.
|
On July 19 2010 22:21 Failsafe wrote:
The lever has been pulled.
The mage can't lie, but one can deceive oneself as to the mage's meaning. Being lied to and deceiving oneself are not the same thing. Self-deception takes different forms for different people.
Illusion is necessary for enlightenment. If there is no illusion, there can be no enlightenment. Not all people become enlightened because not all people exist in an illusion.
lol, isn't that Kant's point in his essay "Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?"
I remember my philsophy lecturer gave me a terrible mark for my comment about this text. I understood it quite well, but he couldn't bear that I arrived totally high at every single of his classes 
|
OP are you [3wD]Christian?
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
So, you watched The Dark Knight?
|
Beast if you believe the riddle is a metaphor for society, can you elaborate further on the point? I've gone through the whole thread and I still do not understand the appeal of the riddle.
|
On July 19 2010 22:21 Failsafe wrote:
The lever has been pulled.
The mage can't lie, but one can deceive oneself as to the mage's meaning. Being lied to and deceiving oneself are not the same thing. Self-deception takes different forms for different people.
Illusion is necessary for enlightenment. If there is no illusion, there can be no enlightenment. Not all people become enlightened because not all people exist in an illusion.
So much win. 
|
I starting trying to read this thread and read up to the point someone asked "if the other prisoner is identical, does that mean a clone of you, same life experience, memories and in an identical situation."
From that point I would think the solution is rather obvious, the situations will be exactly mirror'd, Both will press, or not press, or endure for a certain time then press, each of the leavers in each of the examples identically.
|
On July 19 2010 16:10 Badjas wrote:
Pull the lever. A life without freedom is not a life at all. Not pulling the lever = being dead, for both.
As the op said in some of his responses, this does make a good metaphor for life, well, at least one of the scenarios does. We're constantly faced with situations that may benefit us and at the same time harm others, or inversely help other people but affect us in a negative way. In this sense none of us are ever completely free and it's up to us to decide when to help ourselves and when other people need help more
We as a race are bound by laws, social norms, and our own morality. In that sense we are never truly free and by your definition, have no life at all. So through extension of your logic, as long as we obey any rules that don't directly benefit us or appeal to us as individuals should be ignored and we as humans should only act on impulse and selfishness.
Allegories are fun ^_^
|
I don't understand why there should be a solution to this riddle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
