This is a riddle that has plagued me for about 10 years and I think I finally found a satisfying solution; I believe I finally understood it.
"You are a total prisoner of an unknown mage. You slowly realize that there is absolutely no escape and then the mage gives you a lever and tells you that it is connected to an identical one in an identical prison with an identical prisoner. He says that as long as the lever remains unpressed you both remain in the prison. But when someone actually decides to press it then the other prisoner dies and the remaining one goes free. The prison is rather tormenting and both prisoners really want to get out. What will eventually happen? It actually depends on the person that you ask. What is your solution to the problem? What would you do? What would the average person do? What happens? Does the end justify the means? THINK ABOUT IT!" The solution gets more awesome the more I think about it.
Btw, I first saw a version of this riddle in Baldur's Gate II.
Edit: The other prisoner learns this at the same time as you do. The mage can make you really "know" that everything that is written is true.
Important edit: I got confused and gave the other version of the riddle before the main one.
The main one is this - the more you stay in the prison the more you suffer. The moment one prisoner presses the lever he dies and the other is no longer a prisoner.
You were so excited to post this that you forgot to explain your solution!
As for me, I wouldn't trust the mage. Is there any reason to trust him? Then it's just a question of whether or not I want to play his games. And yeah, I would. So I'd pull the lever.
if you pull the lever, how does the other prisoner die, painlessly? if so, i would pull the lever instantly in order to end both of our sufferings as soon as possible.
On July 19 2010 07:18 geometryb wrote: why wouldn't I press it as fast as i can? isn't there supposed to be some incentive for both not pressing?
Yes, it's not a proper instance of the prisoner's dilemma. Arguably the incentive might be to "not make yourself guilty of murder" I guess.
In my case I'll just assume that the "identical" prisoner isn't to be trusted, and I'd kill him... but he's identical so he'd push the lever at the same time... MIND FFFFFFU
I would press it immediately and not feel guilty. If the prison is torturous then I'm not taking much away from the person I'm killing while I'm gaining a huge amount myself. Equally if they pressed it I wouldn't be all that pissed off because they're pretty blameless. I'd save my anger for the mage.
On a slightly related note, the term prisoner's dilemma usually refers to an example of game theory.
On July 19 2010 07:22 mahnini wrote: the solution is to wait for batman to stop the joker obviously
lawl
that part of the movie was the only thing that bothered me though, you'd think the joker would have made it so both boats automatically blow up rather than requiring his manual activation
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
Isn't the dilemma the fact that it's an identical prisoner in the other cell? thus in x amount of time that you pull the lever so will have the identical prisoner. For that reason I would chill out with the mage and continue to suffer until a situation presented itself I guess.
If the identical prisoner pulls the lever at the same time then the dilemma is just die or stay in jail so it depends... If you ever pull the lever you die and so does he, and he knows it too...
well, when the wizard gives you the lever and explain it's use to you, he isn't with the other guy, so even if the other prisoner is identical to you, he has no clue of what the lever does at the same time as you do. The proof is, well, if he knew before you did, you would be dead. So, asuming there's only one wizard, you can pull the lever as soon as the wizard gives it to you, the other guy will not do it since he doesn't know what it does
On July 19 2010 07:22 mahnini wrote: the solution is to wait for batman to stop the joker obviously
lawl
that part of the movie was the only thing that bothered me though, you'd think the joker would have made it so both boats automatically blow up rather than requiring his manual activation
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
There's a British tv show based on that principle. They whittle contestants down to two people and then they have to share or steal the prize money. If both choose share then they split it. If one steals and the other shares the stealer gets everything. If both steal both get nothing. Of course it's always better to steal from your perspective, you never lose by stealing and sometimes you win. But both people know this which means if both of them act optimally then nobody ever gets any money. Whereas if both act sub optimally then both profit from it. It's pretty cool.
On July 19 2010 07:17 Liquid`Tyler wrote: You were so excited to post this that you forgot to explain your solution!
As for me, I wouldn't trust the mage. Is there any reason to trust him? Then it's just a question of whether or not I want to play his games. And yeah, I would. So I'd pull the lever.
He can make you 'know' things. What is written is all true to you and you absolutely know it.
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
well if they're working together, clearly they should both remain silent. otherwise it depends on how well they know each other. if you think the other guy is going to talk, then it's in your best interest to talk as well.
On July 19 2010 07:22 mahnini wrote: the solution is to wait for batman to stop the joker obviously
lawl
that part of the movie was the only thing that bothered me though, you'd think the joker would have made it so both boats automatically blow up rather than requiring his manual activation
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
This is completely different. I'd rather have people forget about this dillema for this topic.
On July 19 2010 07:35 kzn wrote: You pull that lever in 0.1 seconds flat.
How is this even a dilemma?
well in the Game Theory version, both parties act rationally but doing so they produce an irrational/undesirable result, which might be considered a paradox I guess
as for his dilemma, I guess it might be considered an ethical issue to some - personal benefit at the expense of others (although it's debatable)
On July 19 2010 07:15 RhaegarBeast wrote: This is a riddle that has plagued me for about 10 years and I think I finally found a satisfying solution; I believe I finally understood it.
"You are a total prisoner of an unknown mage. You slowly realize that there is absolutely no escape and then the mage gives you a lever and tells you that it is connected to an identical one in an identical prison with an identical prisoner. He says that as long as the lever remains unpressed you both remain in the prison. But when someone actually decides to press it then the other prisoner dies and the remaining one goes free. The prison is rather tormenting and both prisoners really want to get out. What will eventually happen? It actually depends on the person that you ask. What is your solution to the problem? What would you do? What would the average person do? What happens? Does the end justify the means? THINK ABOUT IT!" The solution gets more awesome the more I think about it.
Btw, I first saw a version of this riddle in Baldur's Gate II.
Edit: The other prisoner learns this at the same time as you do. The mage can make you really "know" that everything that is written is true.
Is this a trick? Because there's absolutely no reason not to pull the lever as soon as possible in your version. Usually there's some sort of "if both players don't pull it they can both _______" clause.
On July 19 2010 07:15 RhaegarBeast wrote: This is a riddle that has plagued me for about 10 years and I think I finally found a satisfying solution; I believe I finally understood it.
"You are a total prisoner of an unknown mage. You slowly realize that there is absolutely no escape and then the mage gives you a lever and tells you that it is connected to an identical one in an identical prison with an identical prisoner. He says that as long as the lever remains unpressed you both remain in the prison. But when someone actually decides to press it then the other prisoner dies and the remaining one goes free. The prison is rather tormenting and both prisoners really want to get out. What will eventually happen? It actually depends on the person that you ask. What is your solution to the problem? What would you do? What would the average person do? What happens? Does the end justify the means? THINK ABOUT IT!" The solution gets more awesome the more I think about it.
Btw, I first saw a version of this riddle in Baldur's Gate II.
Edit: The other prisoner learns this at the same time as you do. The mage can make you really "know" that everything that is written is true.
Is this a trick? Because there's absolutely no reason not to pull the lever as soon as possible in your version. Usually there's some sort of "if both players don't pull it they can both _______" clause.
yea, like if one pulls it and the other doesn't, they get the greatest benefit, if both pull it they get benefit but less than if neither pull it. however if you don't pull it and the other person does, you lose it all.
Hmm, interesting. The new Version 1.0 is interesting...
If you decide to just endure the torture assuming that the other prisoner will eventually cave in, you both might end up being tortured indefinitely (probably till both die).
So the question is, do you act to save the other person? You might as well, since if both of you keep enduring, you'll both die. But there's a chance that the other will cave in first, so maybe not?
I'd probably try to endure it as much as possible.
If the prisoners are truly identical, they would "know" that if they pulled the lever, the other prisoner would do the same at the same time, and thus they would both die (unless the mage has some system in case they both pull at the same time). For instance, if the prisoners were both hotheads, they would immediately pull the lever while their counterpart would as well, and they would both die. If they thought it out, they would realize that this would occur regardless of how long they waited, and thus they would realize that the sooner they pulled the lever, the sooner that both could escape the torment inside of the prison.
Going from prison to death is a good change. Going from prison to freedom is a good change. Pull the lever.
Or if I think the other guy might value a life in prison more than death, and I have a whim of altruism, I'll wait an hour to give him a chance to pull the lever. During that time, I expect him to decide if a guilty conscience is going to prevent him from getting the proper benefit out of his pulling the lever. If he doesn't pull it after an hour, I'll pull it, because I believe he'd be better off that way, and I know I'd be better off that way, and I'd be sure to not let a guilty conscience affect my happiness while free.
On July 19 2010 07:51 StRyKeR wrote: Hmm, interesting. The new Version 1.0 is interesting...
If you decide to just endure the torture assuming that the other prisoner will eventually cave in, you both might end up being tortured indefinitely (probably till both die).
So the question is, do you act to save the other person? You might as well, since if both of you keep enduring, you'll both die. But there's a chance that the other will cave in first, so maybe not?
I'd probably try to endure it as much as possible.
i'd just wait. he may cave! i might cave too lol, although we all like to think we're strong enough to handle torture.
The main question is more interesting. At first your situation seems hopeless, a choice between torment or death, but then you realise the other can free you. You simply need to endure it for longer than he does. Then, no matter how hard it gets, you know he's suffering in the same way and that gives you hope because the worse it gets, the nearer they are to breaking. It's a self perpetuating system. If the torture gets worse then both would eventually break at the same time but if not then it may continue indefinitately.
My problem is that the riddle already tells you what you want to do. It's not a fair situation if I am already told what I want to do.
If pressing the lever gets me out of the prison I press it so I get out of the prison. I don't kill the other person, the mage does. If I am tormented by the prison and so is the other prisoner I am sure he understands.
If the other prisoner wasn't tormented then our situations were not identical.
On July 19 2010 07:59 KwarK wrote: The main question is more interesting. At first your situation seems hopeless, a choice between torment or death, but then you realise the other can free you. You simply need to endure it for longer than he does. Then, no matter how hard it gets, you know he's suffering in the same way and that gives you hope because the worse it gets, the nearer they are to breaking. It's a self perpetuating system. If the torture gets worse then both would eventually break at the same time but if not then it may continue indefinitately.
+1 Very nice. It took me a long time to reach this conclusion.
On July 19 2010 07:59 travis wrote: My problem is that the riddle already tells you what you want to do. It's not a fair situation if I am already told what I want to do.
If pressing the lever gets me out of the prison I press it so I get out of the prison. I don't kill the other person, the mage does. If I am tormented by the prison and so is the other prisoner I am sure he understands.
If the other prisoner wasn't tormented then our situations were not identical.
You're confusing me a bit as it's not clear which version is on your mind.
On July 19 2010 07:59 travis wrote: My problem is that the riddle already tells you what you want to do. It's not a fair situation if I am already told what I want to do.
If pressing the lever gets me out of the prison I press it so I get out of the prison. I don't kill the other person, the mage does. If I am tormented by the prison and so is the other prisoner I am sure he understands.
If the other prisoner wasn't tormented then our situations were not identical.
You're confusing me a bit as it's not clear which version is on your mind.
oh, i was reponding to everything but the bold
ok, so in the 2nd one im going to suffer more and more and there won't be an end to it? i push the lever out of spite suck it mage. why should i believe this shitty mage anyways
(i don't believe in endless suffering though, I think it's possible for the mind to overcome suffering. so if it's within the rules i might pursue that if i could take it)
What you know is certain though. The prisoner that pushes the lever will die and the other one will be freed and no longer a prisoner. (Let's discuss this version first.)
So the actual dilemma is that you will die if you pull the lever but the other prisoner will go free?
It isn't really a dilemma as it depends on the personalities and morals of both people. It's kind of a paradox if you apply game theory. Two computers would forever remain in prison if both attempted to follow the best way to win.
I'd probably pull the lever pretty quickly, unless the form of death was particularly unpleasant compared to being in the prison.
It pretty much all depends on how bad this "suffering" is.
Breaking it down:
Me / Other Guy Pull Don't Pull Pull N/A I die Don't Pull I go free I suffer
So if I choose pull, I just die. If I don't pull I get a choice between going free and suffering. So if the suffering is better than death and will never be worse than death, not pulling would be the obvious choice. If the suffering will get worse than death, then it depend on how big the difference between the positive (going free) and the negative (suffering) is and how that compares to the negative value of death. I'd just make a choice based on that quantity.
Btw, you can imagine the prison in any way you want - it might be a sort of earthly hell where you never accomplish what you crave etc.. Or just a blank prison. The point is to reach a conclusion about what is important. To find meaning.The exact version is not that important as long as it is consistent.
I'm facing a serious dillema in that to make the problem completely clear I will have to give out the solution. Sorry about that, but I think it's interesting either way.
When did the dilemma get inverted? In the second version where I die when I pull it, I will assume that the other one is an exact clone of myself and thus I should pull the lever at once so as to spare me and my clone from suffering alot of pain before we simultaneously kill eachother anyway. Btw, should have picked a different name as to avoid game theory confusion.
On July 19 2010 08:21 Count9 wrote: It pretty much all depends on how bad this "suffering" is.
Breaking it down:
Me / Other Guy Pull Don't Pull Pull N/A I die Don't Pull I go free I suffer
So if I choose pull, I just die. If I don't pull I get a choice between going free and suffering. So if the suffering is better than death and will never be worse than death, not pulling would be the obvious choice. If the suffering will get worse than death, then it depend on how big the difference between the positive (going free) and the negative (suffering) is and how that compares to the negative value of death. I'd just make a choice based on that quantity.
Don't Pull
Going Free > N/A Suffering > Dying (assumption)
So it's desirable to "Don't Pull" regardless of what "Other Guy" does.
I was about to make the game table myself but you already did it. Of course then the Nash equilibrium would be DontPull/DontPull resulting in both of you suffering (assuming a true prisoner's dilemma).
You haven't yet explained what the interesting problem here is supposed to be. I don't understand why you won't clarify whatever aspect of this scenario captivated you for so long. I don't understand why you are worried about "giving out the solution."
As far as I can tell, there is no dilemma and no problem to be solved. You apparently have some question in mind, but you won't ask it. (edit: ok, now you asked it, but I think people already answered that one to satisfaction earlier.)
A general solution to the question "What happens and Why?" is what I'm after.It has all to do with philosophy/metaphysics though and very little with math or game theory. Looking at different cases is also cool, but the different details lead to the same general conclusion.
I wish I could make it as clear as possible without ruining it and also to avoid disappointing someone, but this is all I got for now. I'm going to bed. I hope at least some people find this puzzle as captivating as I did. I apologize to the rest.
On July 19 2010 08:56 catamorphist wrote: You haven't yet explained what the interesting problem here is supposed to be. I don't understand why you won't clarify whatever aspect of this scenario captivated you for so long. I don't understand why you are worried about "giving out the solution."
As far as I can tell, there is no dilemma and no problem to be solved. You apparently have some question in mind, but you won't ask it. (edit: ok, now you asked it, but I think people already answered that one to satisfaction earlier.)
yeah pretty much agree with this. don't see anything profound about it either
@RhaegarBeast I think it's better if you don't try and micromanage the conversation, because otherwise you'll insert your own bias about how to think about the problem.
Anyway, to approach this problem I would probably try and simplify this into a game where we make decisions at discrete time steps, i.e. every hour, on whether we wish to continue or pull the lever. I didn't work it out but I think it results in pulling the lever as the choice to go with.
I'd pull the lever as soon as i started feeling uncomfortable, might be a tough fucker in the other room that won't budge no matter what and then i'd just suffer for eternity.
Your second case, the one presented in the OP, is entirely trivial. It basically asks whether or not I value a complete stranger's life over my own. I do not. I pull the lever as soon as I understand the situation, anyone would.
Your first case essentially asks when you feel that the suffering is worse than death. That is entirely dependent on the suffering involved. If suffering means I am chained to a chair forced to watch people on the internet debate about what really isn't philosophy at all, I'd never pull the lever. It doesn't seem so bad as long as I get food and such. If suffering means I am repeatedly stabbed and healed, I feel that I'd pull that lever after the first stab. Being stabbed is really painful-would rather die and help some stranger.
There's no metaphysics involved. There isn't even philosophy really, unless you count the questions, "hey, what's your philosophy on helping complete strangers at the cost of your life?" and "what do you think is worse than death?"
It cannot be moral or immoral to pull the lever or not pull the lever, since you're not the one in control of the situation (your jailer is). Do whatever you feel like, no regrets.
On July 19 2010 09:48 Severedevil wrote: It cannot be moral or immoral to pull the lever or not pull the lever, since you're not the one in control of the situation (your jailer is). Do whatever you feel like, no regrets.
I really like this insight! The premise might be a little shaky though, as you finally make your own choice and live with it.
This is my attempt at showing what you might consider in an ethical analysis of this.
If the mage is telling the truth and you don't pull the lever, two things can happen: Either you wait until the other prisoner pulls the lever and kills you, or neither of you pull it and you both suffer. So no one ever pulling the lever would never be ideal, so this is something that should be avoided.
If the lever IS pulled than both people's pain ends, albeit one of you has to lose their life. The alternative is both of you live in pain for the rest of your lives. So if you think that's all you need to consider, than it's better if someone pulls the lever and you only need to ask yourself why it shouldn't be you.
On the other hand pulling the lever might violate some important principles. But I think that only depends on what the mage actually is. If he's just a powerful person, then it might be a different case. But assume he's not human, or he represents something else.
Say you're stranded on an island with a stranger and you've both been bitten by a poisonous snake, and there's only enough antidote to save one of you. Moreover, you radioed in for help but it won't be arriving in time to save you both. Also there's not enough time to get to know him/her, plus you both speak a different language. The syringe is in front of both of you and you're both exhausted so either one of you has the option to take it or not without a fight. This analogy isn't perfect, but I think the biggest difference between this and the OP is that in this you can actually look in the eyes of the other person and have to make the choice of taking the antidote or not while he/she watches you. Imagining is this way humanizes the person who making the choice affects. He/she is a "stranger", but they don't represent one particular person, again, in line with the OP. By not being able to see them or get to know them you need to assume they are the "every person". Which is a person who you've made no prejudices or judgments about and so you might consider the stranger as a representation of your standard take on the average person. How do you treat people in general in relation to yourself? Do you assume you're better than someone else for some reason?
In one sense it's a question that changes depending who you are, and where you are in life. If you're like 90 and about to die, then in that case you might be more inclined to not pull the lever. It's more likely that the other person has a lot more to live for. In which case you should just wait until they pull the lever. Alternatively, if you're a child, then you'd want to save your life, and it wouldn't necessarily be expected of you to deliberate it, since you're a child, and it's a tough situation.
You could also ask what the other person wants. If you haven't died yet then maybe they want you to pull the lever instead, who knows. So I think if you do have a reason for letting the other person pull the lever or take the syringe, then you should wait a bit and give them the opportunity to save their life. If enough time has passed and they still haven't done it, then in that case I think it would be fine for you to take the pull the lever yourself since it would be senseless if you both died.
Daimon, you make me happy that at least someone is as nuts as me. Perhaps this is the sole reason that I made that topic. I was feeling lonely
I think whether you pull the lever or let the other one pull it or you do it at the same time or never is not that important. I believe the quality of this puzzle lies in the motivation, which defines us as a person, and a person is more than just a prisoner, so when the prisoner dies, one remains in existence as the choice that he made and the other one is free of being a prisoner, but still has to live with the choice that he has made. So what matters is the basic desire, made of a tiny fraction of freedom, found miraculously in the perfect prison, as it will transcend the very same prison.
a similar formulation of this is in The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas except instead of removing an absurd negative consequence for "pulling the lever" it's a positive reward for pulling it, which I think aligns better with the reality of ego-driven utilitarianism in the world.
I don't think 2 people living in prison could have as much real 'life' as one person living in the free world and one person dead. For this reason I would pull the lever, but probably after waiting a while to see if the other person is more desperate to get out than I am. Having one of us free would be better than the two of us locked up.
This doesn't seem like the prisoners dilema i know. Usually doesn't this game reward defecting with self interest?
Anyway seems like in this version you pull the lever when you can no longer endure it and would rather die. Though it seems dependent on self interest and empathy as well.
As long as I find one person that finds this dillema a bit intriguing I'll be glad that I posted it.
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?
the solution is to wait for batman to stop the joker obviously
Glad that someone else noticed the similarities, Batman Winz.
No matter what, I'd pull that lever immediately, with no doubts nor regrets. The average man would probably pull the lever, the human race is more "selfish" than you think. I don't really see a reason not to pull the lever, it is between you and the other prisoner, there isn't really a choice.
Yeah, but the prison changes you, do not forget that. The more you stay in prison, the bigger the change. No matter the outcome, you have made a choice and therefore you are no longer just the prisoner, you are something more. It must come down to what person you want to be on the outside as you will have to live with the choices that you make. And if we know nothing of death, at least we know that it is mysterious and involves a sacrifice of our previous existence. Whether it is complete oblivion or a transformation is truly unknown. It's basically rolling the dice. Choosing the unknown or as we like to call it - Random.
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.
First you have to establish why am I in the prison? Am I already a murderer? If I was a cold blooded killer, I don't give a shit about the other person. Obviously I pull the lever to save myself.
But if I'm being held hostage by said mage, imprisoned against my will, I might not have the same detachment to killing the person in the other prison. I've never actually been faced with the choice of living or dying so I can't say for sure. But at the moment, if I'm a hostage and my HT hands me a gun and says "kill him and you go free," I don't know about you, but I would probably pull the trigger.
Wouldn't it only be a dilemma if the lever killed yourself and set the other one free, perhaps not even then because there are only 3 possible outcomes, not 4. 1.) None pulls lever 2.) A pulls lever, B dies 3.) B pulls lever, A dies There is no 4th, dead people don't pull levers
On July 19 2010 11:04 Starfox wrote: Wouldn't it only be a dilemma if the lever killed yourself and set the other one free, perhaps not even then because there are only 3 possible outcomes, not 4. 1.) None pulls lever 2.) A pulls lever, B dies 3.) B pulls lever, A dies There is no 4th, dead people don't pull levers
Yeah, but the real dilemma in my opinion is whether or not you can live with yourself knowing you've essentially caused the death of another human being. The scenario is very confusing, because a prisoner can be a prisoner for many different reasons, and you're imagining yourself as a prisoner. Why are you a prisoner? Are you a murderer? Or are you a prisoner because you committed something basically harmless, say... video piracy?
The morals of the murderer may not be the same as the morals of the, eh.. pirate.
I would press it as quickly as i could, i'd say it was self defence because i knew if i didnt press that leaver first the chances are that he would and i don't want to die
On July 19 2010 11:08 Scaramanga wrote: I would press it as quickly as i could, i'd say it was self defence because i knew if i didnt press that leaver first the chances are that he would and i don't want to die
Yeah, most people would think that. But the real issue is knowing you've caused the death of another person. If it's an identical person to you, and you have a wife and kid who love you and you love them, could you live with yourself knowing you've caused the death of another person, hurting their wife and child?
I myself would prefer that we dig to each others prison and live happily ever after even if costs eternity to get there. I think that If I take the decision to take his life, the unbearable guilt will be all that remains of me once I am no longer a prisoner. And also loneliness.. I prefer another choice - I'd rather gamble on death. What would you choose?
Like some other people have said for me it depends a lot on the finer details , for example when this situation starts how much pain / suffering would I be in?. Does it start as an itch you can't scratch or are you immediately being torn limb from limb?. If the latter I'd be much less inclined to give the other prisoner a chance to pull first.
How far does "identical" go? a clone?, same sex / age?, two random healthy people with few real similarities?.
As far as the second scenario goes I'd pull the lever either I die or I go free because I was slower, either way I'm not suffering for eternity. + Show Spoiler +
Somewhat unrelated but I'm an idiot and have to mention it, I notice some folks saying (or at least hinting) that humans are "selfish" it seems somewhat funny to me that this assumption is made, how are we as humans selfish? we've yet to discover other "intelligent" life for all we know we're moral messiahs.
Animals are no different the only difference is we make decisions based on morals , logic and other such man made concepts. Animals act on instinct and would not hesitate in to save themselves at the expense of others the difference being that they wouldn't even view it as murder it would be survival. Survival of the fittest if I recall. Sorry for the unrelated jibber jabber.
On July 19 2010 08:50 RhaegarBeast wrote: Btw, there is metaphysics involved. If you don't like metaphysics, then I apologize for wasting your time.
I don't think this is metaphysics so much as it's a utilitarian situation mixed with a little bit of egoism. Gonna critique the "second" scenario btw
Utilitarian Perspective: Minimize pain+Maximize pleasure - Neither party pulls the lever and both are tortured for eternity (supposing the mage has the ability to prolong their lives. I assume he does, otherwise what's the point of making him a mage in the first place if his magical abilities are irrelevant to this dilemma?) -Both parties attempt to endure the torture for as long as possible while eventually one or both go for the lever and either one or both die (assuming that if both levers are pulled at the same time, both will die) -One or both parties immediately go for the lever, completely sidestepping any misery by both parties. Either both die immediately, preventing any suffering from occuring, or one dies and one goes free, also ending the suffering immediately.
The utilitarian would pull the lever immediately.
Also, the inflated value of ones own self has to be factored in
If the fellow prisoner is a total stranger who you've never seen/heard/been told their name, then there is such a large detachment there that the situation would only further inflate the self worth of the prisoners by comparison, therefore further pushing them towards pulling the lever
Another interesting thing to consider is what the lever SPECIFICALLY does. There are two specific conditions which could change the choices of many people
- First of all, the levers could say, be connected to trap doors in the opposite cells while at the same time be connected to the rig that would unlock the cell in which it sits. - Secondly, the levers could merely be connected to the doors that let the prisoner free
The important difference is that if the levers only open the doors and the mage then kills the remaining prisoner himself, it does shed a bit of responsibility from the convict, as he cannot be blamed for the mage attempting to keep a prisoner in an (essentially) unlocked cell with the threat of killing an unseen (and potentially nonexistent) stranger
While this at first seemed like it made a very large difference, I know think that it doesn't as much as before. If you think about it, if the whole rig with trap doors/falling spikes/poison darts/whatever you want it to be is really the scenario we're dealing with, the whole situation was initiated by the mage and he is responsible for anything that happens, as he's guilty for kidnapping, torture, harassment and coercion.
For these reasons I think it's not only the most humane choice for both parties to pull the lever ASAP
You Kant press the lever. If you kill yourself you go to hell. If you murder the other person you go to hell. If you pull the lever you are a murderer regardless of if anything happens.
So you have to suffer or wait for the other person to pull the lever.
Stropheum, I generally agree with everything you said. I dig the utilitarian ideal completely, especially the negative side. However, it seems to me that I'm perceiving something more than just utilitarian functions here. It seems rather poetic to me - the mage is the prison is our desire to live happily together and cause no harm to anyone and also our desire to have a free will. Or if you'd like to be evil is the desire to dominate and rule others out of your own choosing. Or whatever you choose it to be. It seems that the prisoners created the prison/mage themselves out of their desires. I don't know.. I seem to be alone in this opinion, but this whole story strikes me as a rather profound metaphor for life.
In actuality I ran some different tests to determine the most likely scenario using genetic algorithms. My results have come up differently based on the initial population. If the population is spread evenly or normally distributed, then the population will eventually shift to everyone always distrust. If the population is heavily trusting initially, then the population will shift to mostly trusting.
Not sure how to interpret my results considering they are based on genetic simulations, but if anyone wants I can share the code I have and you can run your own tests.
I think the only interpretation that I have is that the answer to the question is based on someone's disposition about humans in general. This is why I believe there is a hidden factor that underlines why something like 60% distrust, while 40% trust.
Both of your lives suck, although i wouldn't try the mage and may think it's a trap if i pull the lever it may kill me, but frankly both of us suffering is bullshit, if one can give himself to help the other fuck it.
Hell if it kills both of us idc it may crush our changes of both getting out but at least we aren't being tortured any longer.
Weird enough, I got better responses from you guys, then from the wise guys at 2+2 science and philosophy forum. No flame whatsoever... You guys are awesome!
It be a tougher situation if you didn't gain your freedom and the other guy didn't die, such as suffering increases for the other guy and your suffering goes down.
Yes that is interesting as well, although if i didn't know the person i would just be more inclined to let them free, if i knew the person i'd probably spend more time rationalizing my decision.
Either way i'd be more inclined to make a quick decision and move on, i'm being tortured and frankly going days on end is boring at least then i can force the mage to come up with more schemes. Maybe over time win over his friendship, then when he lets me out of the cage a few months later backstab his ass.
Revenge!!!! best revenge is to cut the mages enjoyment short.
But the decision to not pull the lever can always be undone, which means you'll always be thinking about the option. And pulling the lever will doom you, with the only reward the idea that someone who you don't know, will be happy with your action, while never getting that acknowledged.
Idc, someone is better off then me it's okay i remove the self sanctification from the mage. I don't need heroics to be acknowledged i just want the mage to pay and not pulling the leveler may not change my situation but it will change someones else's. And from that i can make my decision quite easily, not knowing the person makes it easier for me not to justify my life over theirs.
Well personally I'd take the selfish way and pull the lever because, well, life isn't very fun if you're dead. I also have no idea what the other person is thinking. If they would pull it then fuck them, they just killed me, not cool. If they would choose not to pull it I'm sure they would want me to pull it because it's doubtful they would want us to both just suffer.
Just a more extreme version of "shotgun" when racing to grab the passenger seat of a car with your friends. Fuck you guys, that shit is mine lololol
You know it's a matter of how long am i willing to wait till i finally let the other person go. And to what i come to conclude is that if i choose to give a period of waiting time my resolve will falter and i'll fall into the trap of waiting and waiting, while if i just do it i can help another and ruin the mages fun vs if i just wait we both suffer making a hard decision and the mages enjoys this. We both can't get out in this hypothetical scenario so might as well make the decision to save one of us and make it fast.
On July 19 2010 16:42 Grobyc wrote: Well personally I'd take the selfish way and pull the lever because, well, life isn't very fun if you're dead. I also have no idea what the other person is thinking. If they would pull it then fuck them, they just killed me, not cool. If they would choose not to pull it I'm sure they would want me to pull it because it's doubtful they would want us to both just suffer.
Just a more extreme version of "shotgun" when racing to grab the passenger seat of a car with your friends. Fuck you guys, that shit is mine lololol
Either way i see it in these kinds of situations the best result is to do the action quickly that way at least one of you can get more time out of life, sure it sucks if you die but you know the best thing about being dead you can't complain.
Both suffer is not an option in my book unless over time you observe a way to break out in which you can take turns killing that bastard who locked you up.
You're going trough the same thought process as I did. This doesn't mean it's the best though. It's just values, choices and consequences. Are they arbitrary or can the prisoner come to know universal morality while in prison?
There are still loose ends and other alternatives though..
First of all, why does the OP think that the moral aspect of this question will end up any differently than the other morality threads on TL?
As far as the P.D. scenario, what possible application could this scenario have to my or anyone else's life? To even use this scenario as a model would require so many unwarranted assumptions that it would have no, or next to no, predictive applicability.
The original prisoner may die, but he's more than just a prisoner after he's made his choice. He has found something akin to free will and perhaps something will remain in his place...
It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
On July 19 2010 17:04 JinMaikeul wrote: It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
You may hope that the other one sacrifices before you. The key here is that you are forced to choose your values out of ultimate necessity. If you fail to do that you might actually cease to exist once you're "freed".
On July 19 2010 17:04 JinMaikeul wrote: It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
You may hope that the other one sacrifices before you. The key here is that you are forced to choose your values out of ultimate necessity. If you fail to do that you might actually cease to exist once you're "freed".
According to the OP, if I press the lever, the other guy dies and I go free. If I don't press the lever, either he kills me or I continue to be tortured while remaining in prison. Where exactly in that situation is the incentive for me not to press the lever?
On July 19 2010 17:04 JinMaikeul wrote: It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
You may hope that the other one sacrifices before you. The key here is that you are forced to choose your values out of ultimate necessity. If you fail to do that you might actually cease to exist once you're "freed".
According to the OP, if I press the lever, the other guy dies and I go free. If I don't press the lever, either he kills me or I continue to be tortured while remaining in prison. Where exactly in that situation is the incentive for me not to press the lever?
i think he fucked up the op and added an edit with a different scenario involving the Lever being pulled causes it to kill you and release the other prisoner.
On July 19 2010 17:10 Coagulation wrote: ok so a man is defined by his actions your saying that if he doesn't take action he is somehow void of life?
This is a mages prison. Originally you were the perfect prisoner in the perfect prison. If this doesn't change until the end, once you are freed of the prison God knows what will happen. You might very well cease to exist. I guess it might be weird to look at things like that. We're so used to defining people in engineering terms that we forget what it means to be alive. If you're just a cog in the prison wheels, once the prison is taken away from you, you are left with NOTHING.
well, the first version of the puzzle is exceedingly trivial -- pull the lever. it would be worth thinking about if the other person had some sort of personal connection with yourself, but since they do not, i don't really see what the argument is for not pulling the lever .. is the question here whether death or suffering is better than living knowing you killed somebody? and whether that in itself will cause more suffering to you later on.. mental suffering can be a powerful thing. hm maybe it isn't so trivial.. but pretty sure actually being confronted with the situation you'd pull the lever because, well, you're human and humans like to live.
the second one is interesting though.. i'll sleep on it
On July 19 2010 17:04 JinMaikeul wrote: It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
You may hope that the other one sacrifices before you. The key here is that you are forced to choose your values out of ultimate necessity. If you fail to do that you might actually cease to exist once you're "freed".
According to the OP, if I press the lever, the other guy dies and I go free. If I don't press the lever, either he kills me or I continue to be tortured while remaining in prison. Where exactly in that situation is the incentive for me not to press the lever?
i think he fucked up the op and added an edit with a different scenario involving the Lever being pulled causes it to kill you and release the other prisoner.
Ofc i do wonder the torture, how bad is it i mean most things people can get used to crap and i know they can't kill me so cutting is not allowed, there is some satisfaction in the fuck you of saying "i wont play this game" But there is a matter of how you are not playing this game, are you in the belief that playing the game is in making the decision. That assumes the game is the mage is in control and you want power back by not giving into him. Ofc on the other side is playing the game is drolling over the decision tormenting ones self in making the decision. In which case to make the decision quickly is the fuck you, if you don't pull the lever the mage assumes you are still thinking about it which may not be true but would be rather hard to prove the fuck you to the mage.
Which either case i'm fixated on saying fuck you to the mage.
How about i just take off my clothes and choke myself to death with it as the final fuck you to that mage.Completely saying I wont stay here torturing myself along with saying i refuse to make a decision and play your game.
Well, I suspect that both lead to the same outcome and the same conclusions. The second one is better for our discussion, because it clearly illustrates how incredible pressure creates life out of a piece of a prison cell.
On July 19 2010 17:04 JinMaikeul wrote: It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
You may hope that the other one sacrifices before you. The key here is that you are forced to choose your values out of ultimate necessity. If you fail to do that you might actually cease to exist once you're "freed".
According to the OP, if I press the lever, the other guy dies and I go free. If I don't press the lever, either he kills me or I continue to be tortured while remaining in prison. Where exactly in that situation is the incentive for me not to press the lever?
i think he fucked up the op and added an edit with a different scenario involving the Lever being pulled causes it to kill you and release the other prisoner.
Then I'd say that neither person would pull the lever unless the torture was so horrendous that he didn't care about living anymore. A prisoner's dilemma is supposed to give a personal incentive for cooperation, feeding off peoples' natural selfishness and seeing if they can do away with that for the sake of both parties. Having the person unilaterally cooperating being punished for it completely goes against that format. It stops being a question of selfishness vs. selflessness, and instead it becomes a question of whether or nor you still care about living. In this version, if you care about living you won't pull the lever. If you no longer care or if the prospect of living in those conditions seems worse than death, then you'll pull it and the effect of it (whether the other guy live or dies) doesn't matter either way since your primary reason for pulling it has to do with your lack of will to live rather than anything else.
On July 19 2010 17:04 JinMaikeul wrote: It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
You may hope that the other one sacrifices before you. The key here is that you are forced to choose your values out of ultimate necessity. If you fail to do that you might actually cease to exist once you're "freed".
According to the OP, if I press the lever, the other guy dies and I go free. If I don't press the lever, either he kills me or I continue to be tortured while remaining in prison. Where exactly in that situation is the incentive for me not to press the lever?
i think he fucked up the op and added an edit with a different scenario involving the Lever being pulled causes it to kill you and release the other prisoner.
Ofc i do wonder the torture, how bad is it i mean most things people can get used to crap and i know they can't kill me so cutting is not allowed, there is some satisfaction in the fuck you of saying "i wont play this game" But there is a matter of how you are not playing this game, are you in the belief that playing the game is in making the decision. That assumes the game is the mage is in control and you want power back by not giving into him. Ofc on the other side is playing the game is drolling over the decision tormenting ones self in making the decision. In which case to make the decision quickly is the fuck you, if you don't pull the lever the mage assumes you are still thinking about it which may not be true but would be rather hard to prove the fuck you to the mage.
How about i just take off my clothes and choke myself to death with it as the final fuck you to that mage.Completely saying I wont stay here torturing myself along with saying i refuse to make a decision and play your game.
if your gonna die you might as well free the other guy in the process for fucks sake.
On July 19 2010 17:27 semantics wrote: The more i think about the more i am inclined to kill myself, removing myself from the responsibility of making the decision.
But whether to kill yourself or not is pretty much the only decision you have the responsibility of making and by doing so, you haven't removed yourself from that responsibility at all, but rather undertook it. This is assuming that you're talking about the situation where pulling the lever kills you and frees the other guy, of course. You're not deciding the other guy's fate. You're deciding your own...
There's a reason just about every iteration of this dilemma involves you having the power to harm the other person in the story rather than this version where your only power in taking action is to harm yourself. Try to imagine that scene in The Dark Knight with the two boats except change it so that each boat only has the power to blow itself up. I guarantee you it would be much less dramatic and tense...
On July 19 2010 17:04 JinMaikeul wrote: It's not really a dilemma if your choice is between freedom/death vs. endless torture for the remainder of your life... I would imagine most normal human beings under the given circumstances would immediately pull the lever because even death would be more attractive than existing in a state of perpetual torment...
You may hope that the other one sacrifices before you. The key here is that you are forced to choose your values out of ultimate necessity. If you fail to do that you might actually cease to exist once you're "freed".
According to the OP, if I press the lever, the other guy dies and I go free. If I don't press the lever, either he kills me or I continue to be tortured while remaining in prison. Where exactly in that situation is the incentive for me not to press the lever?
i think he fucked up the op and added an edit with a different scenario involving the Lever being pulled causes it to kill you and release the other prisoner.
Ofc i do wonder the torture, how bad is it i mean most things people can get used to crap and i know they can't kill me so cutting is not allowed, there is some satisfaction in the fuck you of saying "i wont play this game" But there is a matter of how you are not playing this game, are you in the belief that playing the game is in making the decision. That assumes the game is the mage is in control and you want power back by not giving into him. Ofc on the other side is playing the game is drolling over the decision tormenting ones self in making the decision. In which case to make the decision quickly is the fuck you, if you don't pull the lever the mage assumes you are still thinking about it which may not be true but would be rather hard to prove the fuck you to the mage.
How about i just take off my clothes and choke myself to death with it as the final fuck you to that mage.Completely saying I wont stay here torturing myself along with saying i refuse to make a decision and play your game.
if your gonna die you might as well free the other guy in the process for fucks sake.
Well there is that, but i get nothing from that.
When i think about it why let someone free if you can just kill yourself letting them free is just a side effect.
If i just commit suicide i can at least say fuck you to the captor. Ofc there are many other ways of making the captors life harder, perhaps in time i could observe ways to making myself a difficult prisoner for him to handle. But I'd also have to observe how he enjoys doing his responses to my difficulty.
Frankly just killing myself is much more efficient in saying fuck you.
On July 19 2010 17:27 semantics wrote: The more i think about the more i am inclined to kill myself, removing myself from the responsibility of making the decision.
But whether to kill yourself or not is pretty much the only decision you have the responsibility of making and by doing so, you haven't removed yourself from that responsibility at all, but rather undertook it. This is assuming that you're talking about the situation where pulling the lever kills you and frees the other guy, of course. You're not deciding the other guy's fate. You're deciding your own...
No i do not pull the lever instead i just kill myself.
I see his offer and i just say fuck it and kill myself without pulling the lever.
If i can push a button or pull a lever i can probably move enough to kill myself.
If hes torturing me he has to feed me and keep my clean and allow me to move to keep myself alive, else it can only last for so long.
On July 19 2010 17:27 semantics wrote: The more i think about the more i am inclined to kill myself, removing myself from the responsibility of making the decision.
But whether to kill yourself or not is pretty much the only decision you have the responsibility of making and by doing so, you haven't removed yourself from that responsibility at all, but rather undertook it. This is assuming that you're talking about the situation where pulling the lever kills you and frees the other guy, of course. You're not deciding the other guy's fate. You're deciding your own...
no hes talking about choking himself with his underwear or some shit leaving the other guy to be tortured forever.
I suppose you can't kill yourself in any other way, but with the lever. But suppose that you can. I don't like the outcome. What remains of you? Nothing? Eternal part of the prison that doesn't give a shit?
I believe that the reasons for our choices are incredibly important for the outcome of what gets out of the prison.
I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
I can't see any dillema with the first version. Just press the fucking lever.
About the "important edit" : if the situtation is strictly identical in both prisons, and the other prisoner is a clone, then both of them must have exactly the same ability to bear torture, hence press the lever at the exact same time.
On July 19 2010 17:38 semantics wrote: I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
If you could really muster the strength to shout fuck you in the face of your evil master, then I salute you! You're a true berserker! :D
On July 19 2010 17:40 endy wrote: I can't see any dillema with the first version. Just press the fucking lever.
About the "important edit" : if the situtation is strictly identical in both prisons, and the other prisoner is a clone, then both of them must have exactly the same ability to bear torture, hence press the lever at the exact same time.
Absolutely identical or just very similar - both ways work fine.
The first dilemma is not any simpler, it is more counter-intuitive. By the time the piece of the prison that is called a Prisoner can come to the conclusion that self-preservation is super important, a lot of time will have passed. Nothing is certain. He might reach the conclusion that by accepting suffering and hopelessness he becomes absolutely alive and strong in the end. Or more down-to-earth - he might just fall in love with the other guy that still hasn't killed him and decide on the impossible quest - together, alive and happy for all time! Now, this would require an insane amount of trust in oneself and in the other, but the reward is divine.
On July 19 2010 17:37 RhaegarBeast wrote: Why are you all ignoring what actually happens when you die or leave the prison?
I will repeat myself. "it clearly illustrates how incredible pressure creates life out of a piece of a prison cell."
Assuming that dying means that you die and that leaving the prison means that you're leaving the prison and no longer being tortured, then I am assuming that what happens afterward is exactly that. You presented two scenarios and asked how we feel people would respond in the given circumstances. We answered accordingly. If you want to make this about some philosophical nonsense, please state that clearly in the OP. The fact is that when you're a regular person in that situation, you're thinking "life vs. death", not about the implications of each or the deeper meaning behind either choice.
I really think you're trying to turn this into much more than it actually is. In actuality, the question is pretty straightforward... I can tell you that it took me all of 10 seconds to realize that pulling the lever in the first scenario is the logically sound choice and 9 of those seconds were spent to make sure that I didn't misread something because the answer was just THAT obvious...
I never said that the prisoner is taken fully grown out of this world. On the contrary - I've implied that he knows nothing else than the prison. He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening.
Being a hopeless prisoner in a perfect prison basically makes him exactly a part of the prison. The only way we could call him alive would be if we could know that he was conscious. Since this is impossible, we can safely say that the prisoner is not a living being by any currently accepted standard.
1: Person A presses the lever first. A is happy, B is dead.
2: Person B presses the lever first: B is happy, A is dead.
3: They both do not press the lever. A is unhappy, B is unhappy.
4: They both press the lever simultaneously. (Not sure if this is possible, and not sure of the outcome. Actually, if both people are identical, they will both make the same choice, at the same time, so possibly outcomes 1 and 2 are not possible, and only 3 and 4 are possible.)
Only the third option seems like a no-no to me. I'd rather be dead than unhappy (or free rather than unhappy, but I think that's assumed). In fact, if the outcome was "you both die instantly if one of you presses the lever" my answer wouldn't change: there is no point in endless suffering.
Since the prisoner is identical to me, I assume he shares my philosophy. Besides, one of me free, doing my thing, is preferable to having two versions of me just suffering. That's the state right now, anyways.
Oh, and there is no "divine reward" in suffering eternally. GG.
On July 19 2010 17:40 endy wrote: I can't see any dillema with the first version. Just press the fucking lever.
About the "important edit" : if the situtation is strictly identical in both prisons, and the other prisoner is a clone, then both of them must have exactly the same ability to bear torture, hence press the lever at the exact same time.
Absolutely identical or just very similar - both ways work fine.
The first dilemma is not any simpler, it is more counter-intuitive. By the time the piece of the prison that is called a Prisoner can come to the conclusion that self-preservation is super important, a lot of time will have passed. Nothing is certain. He might reach the conclusion that by accepting suffering and hopelessness he becomes absolutely alive and strong in the end. Or more down-to-earth - he might just fall in love with the other guy that still hasn't killed him and decide on the impossible quest - together, alive and happy for all time!
It really isn't as straightforward as it seems!
I still don't get it and how it can be a dillema. In the examples you gave, you imply, and even say it explicitly in the end, that he can be happy. But one of the postulate was that the prison was tormenting and that he could not enjoy it.
I think the choice in the dilemma is somewhat based on individual moral reasoning.
Lets take the version where you have to pull the lever to free yourself by killing the other person. From a utilitarian point of view (Stropheum has already elaborated on that in a very sophisticated way above) it is clear that you run to the lever as fast as you possibly can.
However, some people are strict deontologists, that is, they are unwilling to take action that violates morality regardless of the good it could achieve. A deontologist would not pull the lever because it would harm another person which is not moral. That is, if the prisoner is a deontologist and its co-prisnoer is an identical copy, then they would both be tortured for the rest of their lives because none of them would consider committing an immoral act a valid option.
Note that they would not even consider it if they knew it would end the other person's suffering.
If you compare that to the utilitarian view (again, see Stropheum's post) it becomes evident that the "correct" choice strongly depends on the respective individual's moral reasoning. Depending on whether it is utilitarianism or deontologism, the correct (= consistent with the person's moral reasoning) choice is pulling the lever in the utilitarian case, and not doing so in the deontological one.
While some people have given good answers after reading through 8 pages in anticipation of something profound, while re-reading your riddle, Op it sounds like you're thinking too much now at page 8
I suppose you can't kill yourself in any other way, but with the lever. But suppose that you can. I don't like the outcome. What remains of you? Nothing? Eternal part of the prison that doesn't give a shit? I never said that the prisoner is taken fully grown out of this world. On the contrary - I've implied that he knows nothing else than the prison. He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening
.
I didn't see this being implied anywhere in your riddle.
If that's your real problem, then you don't need the elaborate riddle.
Here's a simpler one that gets to the point faster:
You are sitting in a room. There is a door that leads to somewhere else, but you don't know where. You know that if you take the door, you can't come back to this place.
There is also a lever that will kill you instantaneously. Obviously, if you take this option, you cannot come back here and choose the other option.
Look, the problem with the first case is that by the time that you get to be like a 24 year philosophy major and "know" that you have to press the lever, you've already realized that the other guy is the closest thing to you that exists in the universe and he still hasn't killed you. So it gets COMPLICATED. Besides, this is not as clear-cut as it seems. You're both too pot-commited and immersed in the matrix to let it go just like that. It might be hopeless, but if you're such a good philosopher you should know that real paradoxes exist in the world and what we believe to be impossible should often be put to the test.
it's interesting how rhaegar is squeezing a whole lot of bias and extraneous morality into a problem which details none of it
you're right rhaegar, who knows what happens after we are freed from prison? so why in the world are you discouraging that solution? it sounds like you're the one who's making a ton of assumptions
On July 19 2010 17:52 RhaegarBeast wrote: I never said that the prisoner is taken fully grown out of this world. On the contrary - I've implied that he knows nothing else than the prison. He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening.
Being a hopeless prisoner in a perfect prison basically makes him exactly a part of the prison. The only way we could call him alive would be if we could know that he was conscious. Since this is impossible, we can safely say that the prisoner is not a living being by any currently accepted standard.
i think you should post what you are trying to say rather than guiding the entire conversation despite the fact that no one has any idea what you are getting at
On July 19 2010 17:38 semantics wrote: I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
If you could really muster the strength to shout fuck you in the face of your evil master, then I salute you! You're a true berserker! :D
The way i have come to know myself, i find it hard for me to see myself doing anything a person who i have no respect or inclination to obey, he does not control my freedom the other guy does. In which case all i wish to do is display my dislike for the person holding my captive. I refuse to die to someone for nothing but a game to another.
As i thought more about this problem i tended to take the position of putting myself in one of the prisoners place. And as i thought about it i thought more and more about revenge and escape things that would become very deer to me as i was being tortured.
I would like to pull the lever and kill myself of my own accord but i just assumed that was not possible, like a giant weight would crush me as soon as a pulled the lever. The thing is for me not to have control of who i am what i do, to be controlled by another is something that boils my blood.
On July 19 2010 18:03 RhaegarBeast wrote: Look, the problem with the first case is that by the time that you get to be like a 24 year philosophy major and "know" that you have to press the lever, you've already realized that the other guy is the closest thing to you that exists in the universe and he still hasn't killed you. So it gets COMPLICATED. Besides, this is not as clear-cut as it seems. You're both too pot-commited and immersed in the matrix to let it go just like that. It might be hopeless, but if you're such a good philosopher you should know that real paradoxes exist in the world and what we believe to be impossible should often be put to the test.
I only find that important if i could talk to the other prisoner, and have the prisoner to prisoner relationship. Else i just focused on the captor, captive relationship of my decision.
On July 19 2010 18:02 BottleAbuser wrote: If that's your real problem, then you don't need the elaborate riddle.
Here's a simpler one that gets to the point faster:
You are sitting in a room. There is a door that leads to somewhere else, but you don't know where. You know that if you take the door, you can't come back to this place.
There is also a lever that will kill you instantaneously. Obviously, if you take this option, you cannot come back here and choose the other option.
What do you do?
The unknown against the void? That's a good one, but since you have no information or incentive on which to base your decision, I have no idea what would ever make you leave that chair.Only outside pressure. You are not alive.
Okay, okay. You need to preface your riddle with this:
You are an entity within a room. You have always been here, and you know nothing else, not even language or anything about the universe, except for your prison's setup.
However, this completely changes the problem, because now we're starting from a blank slate and you're asking us to fill it in. Anything goes, and only logically inconsistent answers (or if we're accepting emotions, not even those) are rejected. It's like asking us to create a fictional universe, with no constraints. There's no way to evaluate the answers, because very possibly none of our values are relevant to the answers constructed.
On July 19 2010 17:38 semantics wrote: I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
If you could really muster the strength to shout fuck you in the face of your evil master, then I salute you! You're a true berserker! :D
The way i have come to know myself, i find it hard for me to see myself doing anything a person who i have no respect or inclination to obey, he does not control my freedom the other guy does. In which case all i wish to do is display my dislike for the person holding my captive. I refuse to die to someone for nothing but a game to another.
As i thought more about this problem i tended to take the position of putting myself in one of the prisoners place. And as i thought about it i thought more and more about revenge and escape things that would become very deer to me as i was being tortured.
I would like to pull the lever and kill myself of my own accord but i just assumed that was not possible, like a giant weight would crush me as soon as a pulled the lever. The thing is for me not to have control of who i am what i do, to be controlled by another is something that boils my blood.
You can be leveled for the amusement of the mage. Like for example - he sets everything up for your release and eternal happyness and then tricks you into getting mad and killing yourself then laughs histerically forever.
That doesn't seem to be against what he told you right?
This reminds me of that movie he box or whatever where if you press a button you get a million dollars but someone dies. And in a spoof by funny or die, the guy was explaining it to some guy and got as far as "two things will happen, one, someone somewhere in the world will die" and the guy pressed it just as he said that lol.
Anways I would pull the lever instantly. Death is tragic but no matter how much you fear it you'll never take a life of prison and torture. Even if the guy has a family I really think they would rather he was dead than suffering until he dies.
On July 19 2010 18:09 BottleAbuser wrote: Okay, okay. You need to preface your riddle with this:
You are an entity within a room. You have always been here, and you know nothing else, not even language or anything about the universe, except for your prison's setup.
However, this completely changes the problem, because now we're starting from a blank slate and you're asking us to fill it in. Anything goes, and only logically inconsistent answers (or if we're accepting emotions, not even those) are rejected. It's like asking us to create a fictional universe, with no constraints. There's no way to evaluate the answers, because very possibly none of our values are relevant to the answers constructed.
There is always a way to make progress. Including perhaps the acceptance of your revision. In the end I'm doing this because I think it's valuable to me as a person. This might be just a model, but all of our knowledge and wisdom comes from such models.
On July 19 2010 17:52 RhaegarBeast wrote: I never said that the prisoner is taken fully grown out of this world. On the contrary - I've implied that he knows nothing else than the prison. He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening.
Being a hopeless prisoner in a perfect prison basically makes him exactly a part of the prison. The only way we could call him alive would be if we could know that he was conscious. Since this is impossible, we can safely say that the prisoner is not a living being by any currently accepted standard.
I did not see any of this implied anywhere... If he knows nothing outside of the prison, then why would leaving the prison be considered an incentive? If he is indeed so hopeless, then why does he care whether or not he's alive in the first place? Furthermore, if he is so hopeless, then why do you talk about him dreaming or having hope in enduring the torment (which he should find perfectly normal since that's all he knows)? Also, why do you somehow believe that it would take a great deal of time for him to value self-preservation? Do you not believe that human beings instinctively value self-preservation? Again, if he is indeed as hopeless as you seem to make him out to be, why do you assume that he'll even develop a value of self-preservation?
Without basic things like self-preservation being a value and leaving prison being considered an incentive by the prisoner, why are you even bothering to ask this question or give these scenarios? Your repeated elaborations have essentially rendered the original questions void of any meaning or relevance.
On July 19 2010 17:38 semantics wrote: I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
If you could really muster the strength to shout fuck you in the face of your evil master, then I salute you! You're a true berserker! :D
The way i have come to know myself, i find it hard for me to see myself doing anything a person who i have no respect or inclination to obey, he does not control my freedom the other guy does. In which case all i wish to do is display my dislike for the person holding my captive. I refuse to die to someone for nothing but a game to another.
As i thought more about this problem i tended to take the position of putting myself in one of the prisoners place. And as i thought about it i thought more and more about revenge and escape things that would become very deer to me as i was being tortured.
I would like to pull the lever and kill myself of my own accord but i just assumed that was not possible, like a giant weight would crush me as soon as a pulled the lever. The thing is for me not to have control of who i am what i do, to be controlled by another is something that boils my blood.
You can be leveled for the amusement of the mage. Like for example - he sets everything up for your release and eternal happyness and then tricks you into getting mad and killing yourself then laughs histerically forever.
That doesn't seem to be against what he told you right?
but that's sure not included in the problem
if that kind of train of thought is the kind of thought you're looking for, i'd love to hear what other kinds of things you think are profound
hey i know the mage might be your mom and the lever is actually a cookie and you're not supposed to eat cookies after dinner so when you pull the lever the mage (your mom) doesn't actually punish you. but it's all a dream and you wake up and none of it happened
On July 19 2010 17:52 RhaegarBeast wrote: I never said that the prisoner is taken fully grown out of this world. On the contrary - I've implied that he knows nothing else than the prison. He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening.
Being a hopeless prisoner in a perfect prison basically makes him exactly a part of the prison. The only way we could call him alive would be if we could know that he was conscious. Since this is impossible, we can safely say that the prisoner is not a living being by any currently accepted standard.
I did not see any of this implied anywhere... If he knows nothing outside of the prison, then why would leaving the prison be considered an incentive? If he is indeed so hopeless, then why does he care whether or not he's alive in the first place? Furthermore, if he is so hopeless, then why do you talk about him dreaming or having hope in enduring the torment (which he should find perfectly normal since that's all he knows)? Also, why do you somehow believe that it would take a great deal of time for him to value self-preservation? Do you not believe that human beings instinctively value self-preservation? Again, if he is indeed as hopeless as you seem to make him out to be, why do you assume that he'll even develop a value of self-preservation?
Without basic things like self-preservation being a value and leaving prison being considered an incentive by the prisoner, why are you even bothering to ask this question or give these scenarios? Your repeated elaborations have essentially rendered the original questions void of any meaning or relevance.
Tough words. I beg to differ. Diamonds are made out of incredible pressure. The living world has emerged out of incredible pressure. Self-preservation has emerged out of pain and fear. And fear is torment for sure.
On July 19 2010 17:38 semantics wrote: I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
If you could really muster the strength to shout fuck you in the face of your evil master, then I salute you! You're a true berserker! :D
The way i have come to know myself, i find it hard for me to see myself doing anything a person who i have no respect or inclination to obey, he does not control my freedom the other guy does. In which case all i wish to do is display my dislike for the person holding my captive. I refuse to die to someone for nothing but a game to another.
As i thought more about this problem i tended to take the position of putting myself in one of the prisoners place. And as i thought about it i thought more and more about revenge and escape things that would become very deer to me as i was being tortured.
I would like to pull the lever and kill myself of my own accord but i just assumed that was not possible, like a giant weight would crush me as soon as a pulled the lever. The thing is for me not to have control of who i am what i do, to be controlled by another is something that boils my blood.
You can be leveled for the amusement of the mage. Like for example - he sets everything up for your release and eternal happyness and then tricks you into getting mad and killing yourself then laughs histerically forever.
That doesn't seem to be against what he told you right?
To take his hand to get to my happiness is crap, if he set up my release and happiness he doesn't care about me he could have just as easily let me go if he wanted. He is getting something out of this motivation is life it is self. So if he gets pleasure is getting a prisoner and then telling him one day he can leave if another guy sets him free is nothing more then string me along again. If i kill myself and he laughs i am not there to regret my decision, i died knowing what i did was take my life finally in my hands.
On July 19 2010 17:38 semantics wrote: I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
If you could really muster the strength to shout fuck you in the face of your evil master, then I salute you! You're a true berserker! :D
The way i have come to know myself, i find it hard for me to see myself doing anything a person who i have no respect or inclination to obey, he does not control my freedom the other guy does. In which case all i wish to do is display my dislike for the person holding my captive. I refuse to die to someone for nothing but a game to another.
As i thought more about this problem i tended to take the position of putting myself in one of the prisoners place. And as i thought about it i thought more and more about revenge and escape things that would become very deer to me as i was being tortured.
I would like to pull the lever and kill myself of my own accord but i just assumed that was not possible, like a giant weight would crush me as soon as a pulled the lever. The thing is for me not to have control of who i am what i do, to be controlled by another is something that boils my blood.
You can be leveled for the amusement of the mage. Like for example - he sets everything up for your release and eternal happyness and then tricks you into getting mad and killing yourself then laughs histerically forever.
That doesn't seem to be against what he told you right?
To take his hand to get to my happiness is crap, if he set up my release and happiness he doesn't care about me he could have just as easily let me go if he wanted. He is getting something out of this motivation is life it is self. So if he gets pleasure is getting a prisoner and then telling him one day he can leave if another guy sets him free is nothing more then string me along again. If i kill myself and he laughs i am not there to regret my decision, i died knowing what i did was take my life finally in my hands.
I'm not certain that the mage is evil. For example, I've been thinking that Sauron is a puppet of Gandalf that creates such pressure to the living world as to make people come truly alive. You gotta love philosophy, am i right?
I said I finally understood it and that there are many solutions, but I'm concerned with the general idea. I'm not high on drugs, I've just gotten weird lately.
On July 19 2010 17:38 semantics wrote: I'm just trying to be as obstinate as possible as my choice doesn't truly effect a prisoner who no longer exists after i let him free at least to me, just refusing to participate in the captors game is the ultimate expression of not being dominated by another.
If you could really muster the strength to shout fuck you in the face of your evil master, then I salute you! You're a true berserker! :D
The way i have come to know myself, i find it hard for me to see myself doing anything a person who i have no respect or inclination to obey, he does not control my freedom the other guy does. In which case all i wish to do is display my dislike for the person holding my captive. I refuse to die to someone for nothing but a game to another.
As i thought more about this problem i tended to take the position of putting myself in one of the prisoners place. And as i thought about it i thought more and more about revenge and escape things that would become very deer to me as i was being tortured.
I would like to pull the lever and kill myself of my own accord but i just assumed that was not possible, like a giant weight would crush me as soon as a pulled the lever. The thing is for me not to have control of who i am what i do, to be controlled by another is something that boils my blood.
You can be leveled for the amusement of the mage. Like for example - he sets everything up for your release and eternal happyness and then tricks you into getting mad and killing yourself then laughs histerically forever.
That doesn't seem to be against what he told you right?
To take his hand to get to my happiness is crap, if he set up my release and happiness he doesn't care about me he could have just as easily let me go if he wanted. He is getting something out of this motivation is life it is self. So if he gets pleasure is getting a prisoner and then telling him one day he can leave if another guy sets him free is nothing more then string me along again. If i kill myself and he laughs i am not there to regret my decision, i died knowing what i did was take my life finally in my hands.
I'm not certain that the mage is evil. For example, I've been thinking that Sauron is a puppet of Gandalf that creates such pressure to the living world as to make people come truly alive. You gotta love philosophy, am i right?
What is it, courage, bravery, heroism the things people write about is not who you are in the best of times but who you are in the worst. To know what the world is really like, to know what core of humanity you have to task the people. People unite under pressure this is observed when natrual disasters occur. Although there is a slight difference when you look at donations for the oil spill in the gulf because people blame bp and want bp to pay, rather then see it as a problem beyond another control.
and i respected my teammates that suffered through conditioning with me
so if i sat there and endured torture knowing the other guy is enduring too i'd bond with him despite us never having met
but i'd realize he's really dumb for just not pulling the lever and i hate dumb people
so i'd pull that shit and rid the world of one less dumb person then go out and buy a hooker since i've been in prison for so long i'm dying for a dip in the pink
Self-preservation hasn't emerged out of pain and fear. It's emerged as an evolutionary basis for the perpetuation of our species. The desire to preserve one's existence doesn't require previous experience. It's instinctual and any animal has it. As for your nonsense about being a 24-year-old who knows that the other guy hasn't killed you yet. In any real circumstance, one of the two prisoners would have been dead long before they reached the age of 24 if only due to the curiosity one may have of what might happen if he decided to pull that lever that was in his room as a child... Certainly if that's not the case, you can't actually expect us to believe that this mage raised two prisoners from infancy with this choice all the while torturing them and that neither prisoner pulled the lever to end the torture for 24 years. But then again, it's obvious that the world your talking about is so far removed from our own it makes me wonder why we're even bothering to talk about such a world in the first place.
Your comment about diamonds and the living world being made out of pressure are completely irrelevant to the initial question you posed. You're taking a simple question and covering it with a bunch of nonsense at this point to try to pretend that it's actually deep and meaningful when it's not. Whether that's because you actually don't realize that it's not deep or meaningful or whether it's because you don't want to listen to everyone telling you that the answers are obvious, I don't know, but that's essentially what's going on here. If you're trying to make some sort of philosophical statement, just spit it out already instead of dancing around and trying to guide the discussion in that direction because this is getting pretty pointless now...
Even in the realm of philosophy, this question would be meaningless and no philosophy major I know would even bother dwelling on this, especially in the context of the circumstances you present. In the realm of practical thought, it certainly is, without a doubt meaningless as well. The real "prisoner's dilemma" is essentially practical game theory that requires one to weigh the value of one choice against the other based on logical incentives and consequences. This is nothing of the sort. What you're peddling as a "prisoner's dilemma" is essentially your own personal sermon to the world about your sense of values and morality. Personally, I don't appreciate that because I feel it to be extremely dishonest to people who might have stumbled into this thread looking to find some actual discussion. The moment you proposed your absurd set of circumstances, that all pretty much flew out the window. I honestly have trouble believing that you've sat down and struggled with this for 10 years. If you have, you obviously weren't thinking for more than a combined 10 minutes in those 10 years because even a little thought would reveal why this question is a pointless one.
I have no idea where you're planning to go with this and from the looks of the thread, many others don't either so I think we'd all appreciate it if you sped up the process and got to wherever you're planning to take this...
I thought this would be a fun mental exercise. It seems some people found it intriguing enough. I'm sorry that you didn't. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I already said that I don't want to give solutions, I just enjoyed working out the dilemma tremendously and wanted to share it with other people. In fact, some of the beauty of this puzzle is that the solution depends on the kind of person that you are.
... I've preached morality and values? Sorry, but you're just being a troll now.
On July 19 2010 18:41 RhaegarBeast wrote: I thought this would be a fun mental exercise. It seems some people found it intriguing enough. I'm sorry that you didn't. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I already said that I don't want to give solutions, I just enjoyed working out the dilemma tremendously and wanted to share it with other people.
... I've preached morality and values? Sorry, but you're just being a troll now.
I'm sorry, what part of this was actually a mental exercise, again? I must have missed that part because the only mental exercise I got out of this was trying to figure out how you could have possibly:
A. Considered this an actual "dilemma". B. Spent 10 years working on this when just about everyone else in the thread probably spent less than 10 minutes. C. Found any applicable meaning or life lesson in this. D. Consider this to relate to real-life philosophy on any level. E. Come across this problem and actually taken it seriously.
As for the accusation of being a troll, I've already answered your question. Both of them, actually, as have many others here. But every time we give you an answer you just don't seem to be satisfied that it might actually be that simple and proceed to add more and more absurd circumstances and backstory to it just for the sake of making it seem more complicated than it actually is. Hell, I can pretty much tell that you're making up crap on the fly at this point because there are clear holes in your scenario that you would have easily noticed if you actually spent anywhere near as much time working on this "problem" as you claim. If anyone's the troll here, it's you...
Frankly, it's completely my fault for actually taking you seriously for a bit there. There red flags should have immediately gone up as soon as you mentioned Baldur's Gate II as your initial source for the problem... BTW, it also clearly states in the OP that you've found a solution to the problem. What's this solution that took 10 years to arrive at? If you're going to say that "there are lots of solutions", I'd say that's not a solution at all... But I'll throw you a bone and say list one of the many "solutions" in that case.
On July 19 2010 18:57 RhaegarBeast wrote: I always manage to get flamed in the end in spite of all my good intentions. How do I do it? It's a great dilemma.
Everytime someone provided a decent opinion you added some crappy extra postulates like "He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening."
And I can't believe you could say JinMaikeul is a troll after all the time he tried his best on this topic.
On July 19 2010 18:57 RhaegarBeast wrote: I always manage to get flamed in the end in spite of all my good intentions. How do I do it? It's a great dilemma.
Well if you said from the start that you want to talk about a completely fantasy world where the people there are absolutely nothing like the people here in their nature or behavior, it might have been a good start since we could have all just avoided the thread from the beginning instead of proceeding to give answers based on our practical observations of human nature, which is obviously something you don't care to hear about.
And for the record, my post was nothing close to a "flame". It was merely an expression of my annoyance at threads like these. If there's no answer, don't bother asking the question. Or if you're going to ask the question, then stop continuously trying to invalidate peoples' answers with extra circumstances afterward. The original question was very simple and there was a very simple answer to it. It wasn't a question of values, life, death, etc. It was a question of what the logical thing to do in such a situation would be and how people would react in that scenario. You proceeded to take that and start talking about a prisoner that knows nothing outside of the prison and talk about what dying and "leaving the prison" means. None of these questions were even part of the original question nor were many of the other questions you asked or points you made throughout the thread. If you have a problem with the fact that this might annoy some people, think uour posts through and structure your OP properly from the beginning next time including all of the things you want to be discussed. That way you can avoid misunderstandings...
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.
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 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
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.
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.
I think the key point is that both prisoners are identical. So there being 2 prisoners is just an illusion, in reality it's only you: You must die in order to live. Once you reach this conclusion, there's no other thing you can do other than to pull the lever, because even if you die, your other self will continue experiencing life exactly as you would, so there's actually no difference. There's no point experiencing the torture of the prison any longer since even if there are two of you, you are still the same self experiencing torture when you could be living.
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.
So the point of philosophy is to analyze an incoherent situation and make up some more rambling bullshit to "solve" it?
I read the thread title and actually expected something profound, the OPs scenario appeared rather trivial to me, but since he was continously stressing about how it was much deeper than what everyone was saying, i read through all 11 pages to discover that he was pretty much remembering something from baldurs gate 2 which actually was really different, and that more or less he became completly delusional about himself being some kind of genius or something and apparently he has also recently started using drugs, i dont really know. Also he more than once clearly states that there is one solution he came to and kept saying that to everyone providing an explanation of his own, practically dismissing them, yet he never revealed it to us, ultimately saying that the answer varies from person to person after all. In any case, after these first realizations, i tryed putting together everything he said to attempt make some sense of it, since mostly it just appeared like ramblings to me, so basically, as far as i can understand, he was presenting us with the following scenario:
Immagine you grew up in a prison cell, never leaving said prison cell, and you yourself not being completely aware that you are in a prison, you know nothing of the outside world and the only (scarce) contact you ever had was with the man who is keeping you prisoner and is mistreating you. Your intellectual capacity is limited to, say, that of a member of a small primitive tribe deep in the amazon, who has never ventured beyond the forest and has never seen anyone else but the tribe elders. One day your captor approaches you and reveals to you a lever, he tells you that there is another cell next to yours with another person that grew up just like you, if you pull the lever the other man dies, yet you go free, if you do not, you will continue to be segregated to your cell forever. The other person is presented with the very same options and since you never had any other human contacts you have no reason to believe your captor is lying to you. What do you do ?
This is though, not my attempt to accredit anything to the OP, since he pretended to ''solve'' this ''model'' by using convetional logic, using concepts such as guilt, remorse, life beyond death, abstrac concepts such as voidness of being(or something),and so on, which are all human made concepts, developed through society and imparted to us through our peers and thusly non existant in such a scenario,to dismiss basic human instincts, foremost of which, we will all agree, is the desire of survival, which is the reason the answer might not necesserily be to use the lever: as a prisoner, your captor mistreated you, yet he also fed you and kept you alive, he now presents you with the option of entering the (to you unknown) outside world, while staying in prison you will continue to be fed, yet you will suffer and perhaps die through the other captives hands as he pulls the lever, yet if you pull the lever and thusly be set free you will face a world that you do not know whether you will be able to survive in or not. So possibly resulting in both captives remaining captives forever, never using the lever.
Of course this might all just be rubbish and my personal attempt to make this thread somewhat meaningful after all since i was very disappointed and bored as i reached the end, sorry.
After lurking TL for the longest time I found a thread that actually has made me post something 0,0
With the scenario that bluestar has brought up, assuming that his analysis of the OP's hints and additions to the initial question are correct, there will be no reason for the man, who knows nothing of happiness as we know it, to desire freedom from his "prison".
From the prespective of the man who has never left that prison and knows nothing of the happiness of the outside world, evolutionary instinct would suggest that he would remain in the jail cell where he will survive.
However another tangent would be if he knew that the outside wold and freedom would be a better thing, he would kill the other man without hesitation for he does not know anything of compasion or love, he only knows his cell and has his will to survive.
Perhaps his endless torture is not what we assume it is either? some people we consider strange enjoy pain and avoid traditional happiness. What if the prisoner's sense of pain is our definition of happiness??
In the end there are too many different directions this question can go while taking account the OP's additional comments. The original question would have a logical answer, explained earlier in the thread about the weight of death happiness and toture in a conventional matter.
however in the version offered by the OP perhaps the man and the other man are clones and will imitate each other, then there is only death or torture in either way, maybe th unknowing man will stay in his cell trying to avoid the possible risk of death of the outside world, perhaps he does not even know what death is? so many different questions can be raised and personally I cannot figure out a definite answer that does not have some tangent that comes off of it
Oh, I just think it's a great metaphor for life - say you can see the mage as the unknown force that keeps you in this world. The other side is what lies beyond your own experience. The dilemma is that you never have sufficient knowledge of the other side to predict what's best for any of you, but you must still make choices and those choices define you as a person. As long as you resist making choices, you're just a puppet of the unknown force (the mage). Everything you do comes from outside pressure. Definitely no free will there and hardly any life either. But slowly the pressure causes people to change and the bigger the pressure the bigger the change. Eventually the puppet makes a choice by itself, because it just can't take it anymore and it is suddenly alive.
I like how they put it in "V for Vendetta". You become an idea and ideas are bulletproof. I also suspect that In the end the intention that you hold at all times will eventually manifest.Why do I believe that? It's difficult to explain. It's just that everything is connected. There is no vacuum in the world.Everything counts. In the end it's not all about whether you attack or defend or suicide or sacrifice. There is never sufficient information to judge what those choices will bring you if you're uncertain about what you want to accomplish. What matters ultimately is who you want to be and what ideal you want to manifest in the world. So leave the rest to the mage!
If you're still uncertain why the mage is such a sadistic bastard - here is the explanation. Fear exists to bend people's will. Ultimate fear binds a person completely, but as I said - diamonds are made under incredible pressure. When torn between 2 impossibly bad choices one has no choice but to outgrow them. "Only when you've lost everything are you free to do anything." In the end the mage is not really evil. It's just necessity - weaknesses are always exploited, but one can't take away something without giving up something else in return.
Sooner or later the boy ceases to exist and the man is left in his place. Is this so scary? I don't think so now that I'm no longer a boy. Similarly the prisoners have to shed their old selves to embrace new ones. And that's all folks. I'm done for now. Flame me as much as you want, but understand that I just wanted to share my most precious insight with you. Don't be too ungrateful.
And last, but not least - what I love about this dilemma is that there are infinitely many roads that you can walk to arrive at a new solution. That's why I thought it would make for a meaningful discussion. It seems I was wrong.
OP I don't know if this is a language barrier for you or you're just unused to writing. It's not that I think you're not thinking about this deeply, but your inability to impart what you wish to say to your audience is distressing and ultimately leads to people "flaming you". It isn't because they are bad people who get angry over nothing, it's because you ramble and are mostly incoherent. Christ man, imagine if you were teaching a class and you structured it this way.
You need to think long and hard before you write an OP. Then revise it, make it more readable and edit out mistakes and put in ideas you forgot to mention originally. At the end you need a polished document that meets your goal - in this case people thinking about morality.
What you have here is a rambling mess that goes on and on and eventually makes most people angry with you. I think you should rewrite the entire OP and then ask a series of questions for discussion. But it's probably far too late for that. So just try harder on your next one.
Edit
What you just wrote above would have served more usefully on page 1 rather than page 11. Perhaps spoilered. Or perhaps you just needed to work on your OP to get this sort of detailed response.
Ogyusuh - I'm assuming that part of the prison is to give you something nice and then take it away to make you suffer. Just like our life really.It seems to me one can't be risk-averse when he's in pain. He will always search for a way to end the pain. Out of pain some people become curious. Others become violent. The choices are many. But pain always forces you to adapt.
That isnt an answer to the question thats just an relation between life and the question at hand..
The question is What would you do or what would the man most likely do or should do to reach happiness?
Is the answer to make a decision because deciding makes you "alive" in someway?
What about animals are they "dead"? They only live to breed and survive and the same could be said of humans. So if the man is physically alive isnt he fufilling his primal purpose, expecially if he knows nothing of happiness as we know it then he should theoretically return to his primal ancestral instincts where his sole purpose is to survive.
I never mentioned anything about happiness. (Did I? Maybe I did one time) In my experience people imagine happiness to be everything that's missing in their live. So happiness = void. I for one prefer pure unadulterated ecstasy or at least some love to "happiness", thank you very much.
Eh, I might be wrong, but you can't fault the blind man for denying that red exists.
So.. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Honestly i dont see why people are getting bent out of shape over this. Cut the guy some slack.. its not like hes intentionally started this thread with the objective of wasting your time.
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 ^_^
You read me wrong. When I say "a life without freedom is not a life at all", I mean that like "a life without freedom is a bad life". Bad enough to be not worth living it, perhaps (euthanasia thoughts pop up).
You're forced into situations where you might harm others while you don't want to do that. That you don't want to do that is either mentally programmed by your genetics (as brought forth by evolution of 'the group' I'd reason) or you're a sociopath and you actually don't care about others. Realistically if you can get away with harming others for your personal benefit, without getting the negative social (or mental) side effects, then it is the wise thing to do if you want to fulfill your end of the evolutionary process.
The cell is merely a self-projection, you are the jailed and the jailer, the mage is merely fear manifested and the lever represents the divide, the means, the moment by which you ultimately free yourself from the shackles of the self and coerced conformity and acceptance.
The identical is merely an illusion, his reality does not matter, what matters is that it is believed, or ultimately that it is overcome.
Badjas, I would consider a life without freedom that I've computed myself to be a good life. Indeed a bad life would be to be a slave of an uncaring entity that forces you to sacrifice all that you hold dear. But every time one sacrifices something dear to himself his fear lessens and thus his strength grows, as fear is the opposite of personal strength. Eventually the slave will either become happy (content, free of suffering) or strong enough to change his life. I see no other options.
On July 20 2010 03:17 XeliN wrote: The cell is merely a self-projection, you are the jailed and the jailer, the mage is merely fear manifested and the lever represents the divide, the means, the moment by which you ultimately free yourself from the shackles of the self and coerced conformity and acceptance.
The identical is merely an illusion, his reality does not matter, what matters is that it is believed, or ultimately that it is overcome.
Am I playing right ?
Posts like this are why I made the topic. I said that it's a multifaceted dilemma, but it's another thing to see it for yourself. There is immense value in different points of view. Thanks a lot.
In all guilty honesty i wrote that as a kindov parody, but I am very much interested in metaphysical discussion and the types of concepts that some people have brought up here.
Seems very simple really there is no other solution than to pull the lever. As not taking action and living in the torment of a cell is equivalent to waiting to die (ie no purpose to life).
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.
So the point of philosophy is to analyze an incoherent situation and make up some more rambling bullshit to "solve" it?
Oh, I just think it's a great metaphor for life - say you can see the mage as the unknown force that keeps you in this world. The other side is what lies beyond your own experience. The dilemma is that you never have sufficient knowledge of the other side to predict what's best for any of you, but you must still make choices and those choices define you as a person. As long as you resist making choices, you're just a puppet of the unknown force (the mage). Everything you do comes from outside pressure. Definitely no free will there and hardly any life either. But slowly the pressure causes people to change and the bigger the pressure the bigger the change. Eventually the puppet makes a choice by itself, because it just can't take it anymore and it is suddenly alive.
I like how they put it in "V for Vendetta". You become an idea and ideas are bulletproof. I also suspect that In the end the intention that you hold at all times will eventually manifest.Why do I believe that? It's difficult to explain. It's just that everything is connected. There is no vacuum in the world.Everything counts. In the end it's not all about whether you attack or defend or suicide or sacrifice. There is never sufficient information to judge what those choices will bring you if you're uncertain about what you want to accomplish. What matters ultimately is who you want to be and what ideal you want to manifest in the world. So leave the rest to the mage!
If you're still uncertain why the mage is such a sadistic bastard - here is the explanation. Fear exists to bend people's will. Ultimate fear binds a person completely, but as I said - diamonds are made under incredible pressure. When torn between 2 impossibly bad choices one has no choice but to outgrow them. "Only when you've lost everything are you free to do anything." In the end the mage is not really evil. It's just necessity - weaknesses are always exploited, but one can't take away something without giving up something else in return.
Sooner or later the boy ceases to exist and the man is left in his place. Is this so scary? I don't think so now that I'm no longer a boy. Similarly the prisoners have to shed their old selves to embrace new ones. And that's all folks. I'm done for now. Flame me as much as you want, but understand that I just wanted to share my most precious insight with you. Don't be too ungrateful.
And last, but not least - what I love about this dilemma is that there are infinitely many roads that you can walk to arrive at a new solution. That's why I thought it would make for a meaningful discussion. It seems I was wrong.
I assume you are talking about example #1 in which the lever kills yourself but frees the other prisoner. If so then the metaphor paints a rather pessimistic picture of life. The prisoner's only justification for living his current life is in hope of another existence free of pain and struggle. The path to the better life however is beyond the prisoner's control, so essentially the prisoner is doomed to a tortured existence with no reasonable hope for a better alternative than death. In this respect your metaphor is even more pessimistic than the Christian doctrine which agrees that this life is only worth living for another better life (afterlife), but there is hope of salvation for everyone through morality in this life.
Your example also illustrates much like existentialism a life where whatever choice we make regarding our existence is a forced, burdening, insufferable decision that carries the weight of our past and present, of all mankind (blah blah sartre stuff). The choice needs to be forced out of us instead of carried out on our own inclination, and that our best wished state is to not have to make any choices at all.
From these two parts I can only say I disagree with your perspective. You describe life as just so slightly better than death, with death undesirable I assume because it is unknown; but to the prisoner freedom is also unknown, and his life seems to be only for freedom and nothing else. Judging this life to be unworthy in itself shows extreme fatigue. But if you need justification, I can't think of anything more depressing than living for another life. In your metaphor for life you actually make choosing between living and dying a dilemma, something only an extreme pessimist can come up with.
The perspective with which you approach choice makes creativity seem like the most unnatural and burdensome quality of all when it's in fact the exact opposite. I agree with your metaphor that any choice we make defines us forever, even aside from choosing between life and death. However I don't agree the decision has to be forced out until someone grows balls to choose for himself. Many cultures actually take pleasure in creating their myths. There's no anxiety or angst involved in carrying out the most basic task of human life. The prisoner should embrace his existence. He also was never a prisoner in the first place.
On July 20 2010 03:44 gmsts wrote: Seems very simple really there is no other solution than to pull the lever. As not taking action and living in the torment of a cell is equivalent to waiting to die (ie no purpose to life).
Yes, but death is the biggest mystery of all, the great unknown. It's akin to choosing random and that's not such a bad thing now isn't it? I hold that this route is also a valid choice.
It's true that once we experience death, we cannot think about the experience and remember it, and therefore we cannot "know" death. However, we're pretty fucking sure that when your brain goes, you're gone. It's not unknown.
To think about life after death is a waste of time as you cannot prove anything, and it assumes something happens after death that gives us meaning. It's not unknown when you die you die end of story until you can prove other wise without hearsay i'll stick to my guns on how we think the universe works.
Zulu, it's obvious that you've put a lot of effort in trying to understand what I wrote and in your own reply. You do understand my general idea very well. However, I like to look at things from the perspective of "All routes are fine. Just choose what you want to be and to experience, bide your time and hold out hope."
Death can be transformed from the scary nothingness into the greatest adventure. Endless suffering creates endless power to gain whatever you want. No one can take away anything from you without giving you something in return directly or indirectly (for example a third person might make things right by taking advantage of your enemy while he's busy exploiting you.). Finally, I've just recently come to believe that in the end our dreams do come true. It's just... the servers are very laggy at this time of the century.
On July 20 2010 04:01 BottleAbuser wrote: It's true that once we experience death, we cannot think about the experience and remember it, and therefore we cannot "know" death. However, we're pretty fucking sure that when your brain goes, you're gone. It's not unknown.
I believe this is one of the greatest fallacies of our civilization. No offense of course; it's just my opinion on the matter and it's quite a foggy matter indeed. Linking the specific structure "brain" with the phenomenon of existence seems rather weird. In fact the closer philosophers are getting to anything resembling a solution, the more they're opening up to the possibility of panpsychism and the like - everything is conscious, just in very different ways. When one structure falls to pieces, our persona will remain stuck behind in space-time, but I believe that we never truly cease to exist. Reincarnation seems almost inevitable to me if conservation of energy holds and consciousness is a universal phenomenon. But like I said, this is just an opinion; i'm way over my head here.
Well I'm trying to stress that the choice between life and death is not a contest, living should win by default every time. I can see why you (not you personally but the author of the dilemma) may think it's close when living is compared to suffering in an unknown prison for an indefinite time. I really think it's not. When you choose to pull the lever no one is being freed, it is not an equal trade off.
On July 20 2010 04:04 semantics wrote: To think about life after death is a waste of time as you cannot prove anything, and it assumes something happens after death that gives us meaning. It's not unknown when you die you die end of story until you can prove other wise without hearsay i'll stick to my guns on how we think the universe works.
On July 20 2010 04:01 BottleAbuser wrote: It's true that once we experience death, we cannot think about the experience and remember it, and therefore we cannot "know" death. However, we're pretty fucking sure that when your brain goes, you're gone. It's not unknown.
I believe this is one of the greatest fallacies of our civilization. No offense of course; it's just my opinion on the matter and it's quite a foggy matter indeed. Linking the specific structure "brain" with the phenomenon of existence seems rather weird. In fact the closer philosophers are getting to anything resembling a solution, the more they're opening up to the possibility of panpsychism and the like - everything is conscious, just in very different ways. When one structure falls to pieces, our persona will remain stuck behind in space-time, but I believe that we never truly cease to exist. Reincarnation seems almost inevitable to me if conservation of energy holds and consciousness is a universal phenomenon. But like I said, this is just an opinion; i'm way over my head here.
That's a really bizarre statement. Why is it weird? It doesn't seem weird to me. If you don't think that our mind comes from the activity of our brain, then what alternative are you suggesting?
There's plenty of scientific evidence that our brain is the seat of our thoughts; we can perceive internal changes in people's mental state by looking at fMRIs, and people's personality and mental ability is drastically affected by changing the brain, either chemically or through injury and disease.
"Our persona will remain stuck behind in space-time" are fuzzy words that don't seem to actually mean anything. I have no idea what "persona" is supposed to be, and I wonder how you think it's "in space-time" if it's not part of our physical body.
If you believe the jailors will let you go when you pull the lever (a pretty big if), pull the lever. The jailors have all the power in this situation and thus the ultimate moral responsibility for the fate of all prisoners involved.
On July 20 2010 04:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Well I'm trying to stress that the choice between life and death is not a contest, living should win by default every time. I can see why you (not you personally but the author of the dilemma) may think it's close when living is compared to suffering in an unknown prison for an indefinite time. I really think it's not. When you choose to pull the lever no one is being freed, it is not an equal trade off.
The immediate payoffs of all choices are different (unless we look to infinity in which case it's probably a perfect cycle) , that's true. But I believe our fear of the unknown is biasing our views in favor of the good old suck. When the good old sucks, change is the right answer. If the only way to change is to end the current existence, weeeeell... Why not?
On July 20 2010 04:17 Cerion wrote: If you believe the jailors will let you go when you pull the lever (a pretty big if), pull the lever. The jailors have all the power in this situation and thus the ultimate moral responsibility for the fate of all prisoners involved.
I believe one of the morals of the story is that you can never be truly cornered. The more they take from you, the less you have to lose, the stronger you become.
The brain... How can the brain exist if it's not perceived by anyone or itself. It can't. So therefore it either perceives itself and this is what consciousness means - perceiving oneself or we get to an unsolvable paradox.
All consciousness is basically perceiving oneself. I'm quite certain of this. I expect a lot of flames too.
The part about space-time and personas is valid. The world is not made out of quarks only. It's made of stories. How so? Well, everything is interconnected and the complexity of it all gives rise to incredible, never-ending stories. Just like the one we're living right now.
haha should we get into the world we see we hear we taste is all nothing more then our perception of the world meaning we do not see the truth we see our interpretation of our truth. So in the end where are we and who we are is nothing more then what others and yourself think.
Not true. We're directly connected to others (and everything else) via invisible strings and it's probably true that the ability to empathize is much more complex than we realize. Also, even if we forget all that - our absolute truth is what we perceive at each moment of our existence. Abandoning the objective world-view of reality might make one a little sad, but I don't think it's such a big deal.
The brain... How can the brain exist if it's not perceived by anyone or itself. It can't.
How's that again? I can perceive my brain. I can get an x-ray or an MRI and see pictures of it. I can take drugs that change it physically. I can shove something up through my nose and poke a hole in it. It sends signals down to the rest of my body to animate bits and pieces of it, and I could measure the signals.
The world is not made out of quarks only. It's made of stories. How so? Well, everything is interconnected and the complexity of it all gives rise to incredible stories. Just like the one we're living right now.
I'm sure this is meaningful to you, but it means nothing to me, because you're using the word "made of" to mean something confusing. The world isn't "made of" stories in the same way that a wall is "made of" bricks, so I don't know what you mean. The complexity of the world gives rise to goldfish, but I don't say the world is made of goldfish.
So this means that you are your brain, your brain is perceiving something other than himself (absolute mystery how this happens) and you look at a picture and a man tells you that this is your brain. He might be lying and at best what you're perceiving is how the brain looks to an outside observer, which is not to experience oneself. So where does this endless loop start - outside observer looks at thing looks at outside observer etc... It's an impossible loop. You never experience yourself, you always experience the others. Nah. This is absurd. We experience ourselves and all the props of this world that you see and hear and touch and smell are just temporary parts of our interior.
We can measure the patterns that are going trough our bodies at each moment and predict the future to some degree. This has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
Eh, about the second one - fine, have it your way, I don't see how the wording is so important though. Do you have a quarrel with saying that the world consists of elementary particles moving in space time? Anyway, you're dodging the important point about stories and complexity.The problem is that reductionism is a blind ideology. The sum of the parts is something different.
On July 20 2010 04:46 RhaegarBeast wrote: So this means that you are your brain, your brain is perceiving something other than himself (absolute mystery how this happens) and you look at a picture and a man tells you that this is your brain. He might be lying and at best what you're perceiving is how the brain looks to an outside observer, which is not to experience oneself. So where does this endless loop start - outside observer looks at thing looks at outside observer etc... It's an impossible loop. You never experience yourself, you always experience the others. Nah. This is absurd. We experience ourselves and all the props of this world that you see and hear and touch and smell are just temporary parts of our interior.
Sure, I "experience" myself. I just think that my experience seems like it is probably a product of what happens in my brain, not some other mysterious thing, and so if my brain goes away, my experience stops.
Do you have a quarrel with saying that the world consists of elementary particles moving in space time? Anyway, you're dodging the important point about stories and complexity.The problem is that reductionism is a blind ideology. The sum of the parts is something different.
No, I have no quarrel with that. The only way I know how to understand things is via reductionism. I have yet to encounter anything in the world that didn't turn out to be the sum of its parts, so I'm hesitant to say that minds are in that category just because I don't know how they work.
On July 20 2010 04:04 semantics wrote: To think about life after death is a waste of time as you cannot prove anything, and it assumes something happens after death that gives us meaning. It's not unknown when you die you die end of story until you can prove other wise without hearsay i'll stick to my guns on how we think the universe works.
On July 19 2010 21:15 Doctorasul wrote: 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.
lmao
i kept reading the thread expecting rhaegar to wisen up, but it turns out some people fall for his pseudo intellectual rambling
I had to sit on the bus today listening to some new age lady ramble for about 4 hours straight about death, life, the interconnectedness of all things etc. At one point she was declaring how stupid one would have to be in order to hold the belief that consciousness ceases with death. Then I went on tl after being off internet for 10 days to get a dose of sound rational thinking and I find this thread. And the reason I'm really pissed off is that I can't help but envy anyone who has the ability to fool himself into thinking otherwise.
On July 20 2010 04:04 semantics wrote: To think about life after death is a waste of time as you cannot prove anything, and it assumes something happens after death that gives us meaning. It's not unknown when you die you die end of story until you can prove other wise without hearsay i'll stick to my guns on how we think the universe works.
Hi. I'd just like to step in to say that Quantum Immortality and Quantum Science is not necessarily hard proven science.
Damn, I suppose you got me there. The problem with science is that you have to be an expert to judge whether something is likely true or not. It makes no sense to convince non-experts of either as the only thing that happens is that science becomes religion.
On July 19 2010 21:15 Doctorasul wrote: 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.
lmao
i kept reading the thread expecting rhaegar to wisen up, but it turns out some people fall for his pseudo intellectual rambling
rhaegar, you want to help me make stone soup?
i'll provide the stone
Sure. Why not? That's exactly the way the world exists anyway.
My problem is that the riddle already tells you what you want to do. It's not a fair situation if I am already told what I want to do.
If pressing the lever gets me out of the prison I press it so I get out of the prison. I don't kill the other person, the mage does. If I am tormented by the prison and so is the other prisoner I am sure he understands.
If the other prisoner wasn't tormented then our situations were not identical.
this is what i was thinking, but i had a hard time putting it into words before i read that lol.
There's a difference between fear of not achieving one's ideal and fear of departing from the known world.
On July 20 2010 11:34 hifriend wrote: I had to sit on the bus today listening to some new age lady ramble for about 4 hours straight about death, life, the interconnectedness of all things etc. At one point she was declaring how stupid one would have to be in order to hold the belief that consciousness ceases with death. Then I went on tl after being off internet for 10 days to get a dose of sound rational thinking and I find this thread. And the reason I'm really pissed off is that I can't help but envy anyone who has the ability to fool himself into thinking otherwise.
You're fooling yourself that I'm fooling myself. In the end the Paradox is king.
On July 20 2010 11:39 Kashll wrote: pseudo intellectual
There is no other kind of intellectual.
I'll be honest. While I can understand that English is not your main language (possibly) and that youre intentions are good, I find this the whole thread rather offensive.
Philosophy is a discipline as much as it is about thinking out of the box There is a reason you go to university to get a philosophy degree. There is a reason why actual philosophers are who they are and not the crazy guy down the street. And that's be cause a part of philosophy that is as important as the ideas themselves is the ability to structure your thought into a meaningful way. Statements like "there is no other kind of intellectual" to an accusation of being a pseudo intellectual is either a) nonsense, b) weak argument or c) a deeper discussion (about how if all intellectuals are fake intellectuals (pseudo) is there really such a thing as intellectuals in the first place, leading to a logical loop of how can something be fake if there is no true form to be fake off in the first place). What I would stress about c) though is that as fascinating as this new discussion is, it is completely tangential to the original problem and is only muddling up the discussion at at large!
So HONESTLY - have some intellectual discipline here are talk about one thing, make a point and move on. If you wrote something like this in a thesis, you would fail. If you presented it as a professor to the class, they would not take you seriously. And if you do it on an internet forum, you are asking to be flamed.
Just look. Already you have brought up interesting issues, but all of them are dealt with in such a shallow manner that they might as well just be mentioned.
1) Game Theory: - how the opposing sides will chose the "best" choice to suit them, but ironically the most rational choice will produce an irrational result
- Or in the second version of the problem, pulling the lever will kill me but let the other free. As time passes, I realize that he has not killed himself yet and therefore I know that he is trying to hold out. Morally I have less incentive to save a selfish person. Logically I will hold out until the suffering outweighs the penalty of death. So in either case the passage of time gives incentive to not pull the lever and thus prolongs suffering.
2) Free will - If you don't pull the lever, you are still trapped in the prison and at the whim of the mage. Yet if you do pull the lever, then you are following the mage's plan and thus still not exercising free will. And in scenario two, pulling the lever will kill you, ending any chance at future free will. Lots of discussion on free will and predestination here.
- After living in the prison for so long, the absolute freedom of the unknown outside world is worse than the controlled bondage of the prison. The value of freedom thus becomes not absolute, but relative.
3) The fear of death - If death is the end of life, then there is logically no reason to fear death, since you will be dead. If you are alive, you are not dead, so you need not fear. If you are dead, you are non-existent and so cannot fear. Thus what is feared is the dying and so you might want to ask how the pulling the lever is going to kill you, or the person in the other cell.
4) Morality - Does self-preservation justify the termination of someone else's life? And if yes, wouldn't that make self-preservation ironically a good reason to deny someone else's self-preservation. And at that point there would not be any morality at all, but merely might is right (or in this case whoever can pull the lever first). So if the answer to a question of "is it moral?" is an amoral scenario, then it would mean that logically killing for self preservation is not morally acceptable and people just make excuses.
... and so on.
Just from these bullet points, there's so much potential for discussion and the bouncing of ideas. However instead of letting these discussion flower, what you ended up doing is to stymie the debate by constantly interrupting and spouting your verbiage of spotty throw away one liners like this convoluted string that is simply trying too hard.
I like how they put it in "V for Vendetta" (what does this tell us?). You become an idea and ideas are bulletproof (how is this related to the question?). I also suspect that In the end the intention that you hold at all times will eventually manifest.Why do I believe that? It's difficult to explain. (Why post yourself a question you cannot even answer?) It's just that everything is connected. There is no vacuum in the world (What are you trying to say?). Everything counts (this 2 word sentence tells me nothing). In the end it's not all about whether you attack or defend or suicide or sacrifice. (THEN WHAT IS IT ABOUT?!)
So as a suggestion to your future posts - intervene only when you really have to. And when you do, you might want to try to use less of these wide, general statements that can mean ANYTHING. You really need to polish up your rhetoric.
On July 21 2010 06:04 levelping wrote: 1) Game Theory: - how the opposing sides will chose the "best" choice to suit them, but ironically the most rational choice will produce an irrational result
An action only needs to be rational a-priori. If a man believes he can fly, only to jump off a building and die, his action was still rational a-priori. Thats not to say that the consequences don't matter, but just that man acts rationally almost always.
A priori does not mean "prior to the action". It means knowledge attainable via reason alone, prior to experience. In this context, knowing that you can't fly, or that jumping off a building will kill you, is absolutely not a priori knowledge; it's based on your understanding of human physiology and the physical world. (Believing that you can fly without basis is not knowledge at all.)
The word you were looking for was simply "subjective." If he believes he can fly, it's rational for him.
You're right to make your criticism, though, because it didn't make any sense for the poster above you to say that an "irrational" result was produced (and it's sure not "ironic.") He meant a suboptimal result, from the perspective of the two participants.
You say prior to experience, but obviously experience has to come from an action, even if the action is just observation... how else can empirical knowledge be built? And I don't agree that such a thing as "not knowledge" can exist, given a deterministic world. Whatever though.
On July 21 2010 08:37 XeliN wrote: I've often considered a priori to be a poor term yet it's so frequently chucked about in philosophical things.
Although I don't think that a priori knowledge is actually possible and the term needs greater qualification.
A triangle having three sides is a priori knowledge. It can be demonstrated through definition alone. You don't need to collect a sample of triangles and count their sides etc.
No offense Rhaegarbeast, but your fancy statements are throwing off your own thread. I understand English isn't your first language, but I find your posts hard to follow because there's a lot of fluff and little substance to be gained from each post purely because you go off on a tangent with wild statements which are almost unrelated (except by perhaps a thin thread).
I didn't read most of the thread after the first few pages, because I personally think philosophy is a waste of time in my lifetime (but useful generations down). and also partly because I am a computer programmer.
In my opinion, I wouldn't be thinking WHAT should I be doing. I would be thinking WHY.
WHY am I stuck in this insane prison with this crazy mage being tortured. And through knowing WHY, we'll understand WHO we are, and by understanding ONESELF, you would understand the situation better. (what can change the nature of a man...)
That's my bit from Planescape Torment done. Or perhaps I was never meant to post in this thread (computer programmer etc.)
On July 21 2010 08:35 Yurebis wrote: You say prior to experience, but obviously experience has to come from an action, even if the action is just observation... how else can empirical knowledge be built? And I don't agree that such a thing as "not knowledge" can exist, given a deterministic world. Whatever though.
That's why empirical knowledge is a posteriori knowledge and not a priori.
On July 21 2010 08:37 XeliN wrote: I've often considered a priori to be a poor term yet it's so frequently chucked about in philosophical things.
Although I don't think that a priori knowledge is actually possible and the term needs greater qualification.
A triangle having three sides is a priori knowledge. It can be demonstrated through definition alone. You don't need to collect a sample of triangles and count their sides etc.
You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
You can say once you understand certain basic mathematical concepts, (the notion of "3" being one) and a whole host of other things that without experience would not be possible, then you can show a triangle to be 3 sided simply on definition and understand it to be true.
As i've said my main gripe is with the term itself and feel it needs greater qualification.
I would say that any definition of 'a priori knowledge' should encompass the usual arithmetic. This in turn yields our usual understanding of space ( the canonical example being Euclidian n-space as the Cartesean product Rx...xR of n copies of R endowed with 'the usual metric' d(p,q)=sqrt(p.q) where -.- is the 'dot product' ), in which we may do geometry if we so please.
On July 21 2010 08:37 XeliN wrote: I've often considered a priori to be a poor term yet it's so frequently chucked about in philosophical things.
Although I don't think that a priori knowledge is actually possible and the term needs greater qualification.
A triangle having three sides is a priori knowledge. It can be demonstrated through definition alone. You don't need to collect a sample of triangles and count their sides etc.
You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
You can say once you understand certain basic mathematical concepts, (the notion of "3" being one) and a whole host of other things that without experience would not be possible, then you can show a triangle to be 3 sided simply on definition and understand it to be true.
As i've said my main gripe is with the term itself and feel it needs greater qualification.
In defense of the word, I suggest only that there are both simpler and more complicated examples of a priori knowledge, which may or may not convince you that there's a worthwhile distinction.
(I'm not well-educated in philosophy, but as I understand it, the term of art for distinguishing a priori knowledge that is based on definitions is "analytic", whereas the term for a priori knowledge that is not simply based on definitions -- if you think anything falls into this category -- is "synthetic.")
Simpler: "Nothing is both true and false at the same time."
This is very simple a priori knowledge. Are the concepts of "truth" and "falsehood" simple enough that you can understand them without language? Does this express something that you know even before you know the definitions involved?
More complicated: "There are an infinite number of prime numbers."
This is unavoidable a priori knowledge given the axioms of arithmetic, but it's not obvious upon learning those axioms. Many people might know enough mathematics that this is a logical consequence of the rest of their knowledge, but they still do not know this particular fact. Does that make it different from "self-evident" a priori knowledge like the other examples given above?
For the sake of cleanliness, here is a proof of the infinitude of primes:
Definition: A prime number is a number p whose only divisors are 1 and p.
Lemma: Any natural number can be written as a product of primes. Proof: Suppose there are numbers that cannot be written as a product of primes. Then by well-ordering there is a smallest such number n. Since n is not prime, n=pq with p,q not products of primes and less than n. This contradicts the assumption that n is the smallest such number.
Theorem: There are an infinite number of primes. Proof: Suppose there is a finite number of primes p1,...,pn, and write k=p1...pn+1. Then no pj divide k, and by our lemma the list cannot be complete.
My way of approaching this would be, "It would depend whether or not you believe you have any worth/value to still be alive in the world".
Let's say you have kids and or someone to take care of, basically an emotion that makes their life priority over yours (something I personally believe in).
The problem is the other person is in the same situation because he is 'identical'. From there I'd judge the wizards truthfulness.
a. The wizard is telling the truth and we both don't pull the lever and suffer because we want to live b. We pull the lever when we need to e.g. we don't want to lose a limb so we can continue our duties as 'parents/guardians', thus when i pull the lever:
1. both of us die, because we pull it at the same time (wizard was honest), 2. i die, and he goes free (wizard was lying about ABSOLUTE IDENTICAL-NESS) but it's not like I can sustain pain forever so i take the risk 3. he dies, i go free (wizard was bullshitting) 4. nothing happens (wizard was bullshitting)
It's not like you can control your fate if you are the 'experiment' of a being that has the power of life and death. It's a simple leap of faith wherein you realize that your ability to live is NOT in your hands anymore but at the MERCY of someone else.
For the sake of referencing the BATMAN DARK KNIGHT thing with the 2 boats, although they were at the MERCY of the JOKER. The JOKER didn't make anyone undergo physical 'torment' nor prove that he had the power of LIFE AND DEATH like this mage in the OP is described to have. If the OP included a time limit with no physical torment nobody would pull the lever and let e.g. the mage do it (or batman come save them)
(tbh to make the movie more interesting and extremely rated R the joker should have said something like someone will die/fingers will be cut every minute a decision is not made)
1. a human being should intrinsically look out for other human beings like 'all organisms' 2. being at the mercy to make a decision by another human being without physical torment/suffering should not threaten you ever
Until then suffering/pain/death is a personal decision. Think of being abducted as a spy by the enemy. They want you to choose to spill your information through torture.
1. I have integrity and I want others to live because I have VITAL INFORMATION on e.g. how to stop the enemy from creating more DEATH and thus I endure torture and choose death. 2. My life is important and I sell out but many others die because of me spilling my information. But in return I can still take care of my loved ones (unless I get them killed because of this information anyway)
TLDR: i'd pull the lever after i've suffered to my personal limit, because there would be nothing else for me to do at the mercy of a superior being and given that the only loss in life would be myself or the other guy IF the mage was telling the truth.
FOR ALL I KNOW there could be 6 billion other people in the other room or the lever could destroy the entire universe.
The problem I guess is putting faith in a lever created by a mage (a proven superior organism with the power of life and death) with conditional suffering.
Contradicted by putting faith in a detonator created a human (e.g. the joker) with a time limit.
Now if the the detonator also had conditional suffering added to the decision making process then things would get more interesting...
Hehe just found out that RhaegarBeast posted this same thing on Tribal Wars forum...always nice to see another TWer around;) it's funny to see that both threads have very similar comments, especially comparisons to TDK dillema
On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote: You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes.
While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori.
On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote: You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes.
While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori.
On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote: You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes.
While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori.
Ok kzn I'm going to do something illadvised and present an argument that might seem poor to illustrate my point, but if you'll engage in abit of Socratic dialogue hopefully I'll be able to outline my point.
Do you need to experience falling off a a tall building in order to know that it is highly dangerous.
If not does that mean that such knowledge is a priori?
I really don't consider this a philosophical question in the sense of love of knowledge.
It's more like a riddle. We're presented with a question, and asked to answer it. But the question is poorly worded so any multitude of answers could suffice. A lot of people say that the man is identical to you, even though the question could just mean that he has the same number of children as you, has a spouse like you, and is hard working like you. If you know which of these the question is asking the question becomes much more simple, and if you the question were written in five paragraphs instead of one there would be no discussion, there would only be one clear logical answer that no one would rationally argue against.
When I think of true philosophy I think of questions that people can argue on based on solid reasoning from both sides.
In addition, this question is one that no one in their lives will ever face. I might as well ask you what you would do if you were suffocating in space and had only two seconds to decide whether to put an oxygen tank on your head and die slowly as the oxygen level died down, or kick it away and die faster.
There is no point in answering this question because you will never have to. If some day, against the odds, you get captured by some religious/political group and put on a stretching rack and have a gun put to your head, and asked the same things as in this question, you're not going to have ten minutes to think it over, you'll act quickly and as rationally as possible under the pressure you are in.
Every day I ask myself what my favorite starcraft unit is. It's a waste of time, I know it's the science vessel, but I ask it anyways. This question is the same thing. A waste of time.
Someone definitely had to experience it for people to know its highly dangerous. You can extrapolate that its dangerous from other experiences, for instance, the experience of gravity, the experience of falling, the experience of height, and the experience of hitting the ground at speed, and guess (accurately) what will happen if you fall off a tall building, but it is impossible to know that its dangerous without experiencing something, so its a posteriori.
On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote: You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes.
While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori.
I would be very careful with that statement...
It is patently true.
You DO realize a completely different universe also means a completely different set of rules, right? How can you assume that all possible universes would require 3-sided shapes to be triangles?
On July 22 2010 06:58 JinMaikeul wrote: You DO realize a completely different universe also means a completely different set of rules, right? How can you assume that all possible universes would require 3-sided shapes to be triangles?
Because the definition of a Triangle is a polygon with three sides. The most you could have would be universes where tirangles can't/don't exist, but even then a triangle would still be a triangle.
How can you assume that all possible universes would require 3-sided shapes to be triangles?
Because the very definition of a triangle IS a 3 sides shape.
Do you need to experience falling off a a tall building in order to know that it is highly dangerous.
If not does that mean that such knowledge is a priori?
No, but you would need to have heard about other people falling of buildings, or something similar.
On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote: You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes.
While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori.
I would be very careful with that statement...
It is patently true.
You DO realize a completely different universe also means a completely different set of rules, right? How can you assume that all possible universes would require 3-sided shapes to be triangles?
The rules are irrelevant. A triangle is defined as a 3-sided, 2 dimensional shape. Whether such a thing is possible in a given universe is completely irrelevant. Whether the universe has another name for 3-sided shapes is irrelevant. Whether the universe has a different meaning for the word triangle is irrelevant.
The word is not the concept, and the concept of a triangle is a 3-sided 2d shape. This is a constant across all possible universes, and thus across all possible universes a 3-sided 2d shape is a triangle, even if that is not what it is called.
On July 22 2010 06:50 XeliN wrote: Ok kzn I'm going to do something illadvised and present an argument that might seem poor to illustrate my point, but if you'll engage in abit of Socratic dialogue hopefully I'll be able to outline my point.
Do you need to experience falling off a a tall building in order to know that it is highly dangerous.
If not does that mean that such knowledge is a priori?
That is deductive knowledge which is rooted in experience. A priori exists only in the realms of definitions, not in the world of experience. All circles are round is a priori knowledge because a round shape is defined as a circle.
On July 22 2010 06:54 kzn wrote: Someone definitely had to experience it for people to know its highly dangerous. You can extrapolate that its dangerous from other experiences, for instance, the experience of gravity, the experience of falling, the experience of height, and the experience of hitting the ground at speed, and guess (accurately) what will happen if you fall off a tall building, but it is impossible to know that its dangerous without experiencing something, so its a posteriori.
Fine, so your saying direct experience of it is not neccesary, but certainly there must be experience either of it, or the governing factors (eg. gravity) in order to arrive at that knowledge.
Let's take that same idea and apply it to triangles. You do not need direct experience of a triangle to know it has 3 sides. Yet the knowledge necessary to know that a triangle has 3 sides simply by it's definition IS dependent on experience. It depends on basic mathematical concepts, the ability to understand language, hell you even need to have the experience of the definition of a triangle.
On July 22 2010 07:06 XeliN wrote: Fine, so your saying direct experience of it is not neccesary, but certainly there must be experience either of it, or the governing factors (eg. gravity) in order to arrive at that knowledge.
Technically I was saying you do need direct experience to know, for a fact, that its dangerous, but even the almost-knowledge that most people have of it is a posteriori.
Let's take that same idea and apply it to triangles. You do not need direct experience of a triangle to know it has 3 sides. Yet the knowledge necessary to know that a triangle has 3 sides simply by it's definition IS dependent on experience. It depends on basic mathematical concepts, the ability to understand language, hell you even need to have the experience of the definition of a triangle.
This is true linguistically, in that you need experience to know that "triangle" refers to 3-sided objects, but not conceptually.
However, this does make me wonder if Kant would argue that this is synthetic a priori knowledge as well.
On July 22 2010 07:10 HeavOnEarth wrote: Whoa. 15 pages of text for what i thought to be a pretty straightforward answer. Did i miss something or is it just pages of people flaming the OP
some of that, some off topic stuff, and a bunch of pseudo-profundity similar to the original post. add that all up and boom ya got 15 pages
On July 22 2010 07:10 HeavOnEarth wrote: Whoa. 15 pages of text for what i thought to be a pretty straightforward answer. Did i miss something or is it just pages of people flaming the OP
Well the OP doesn't seem to want to admit that the answer is, indeed, straightforward. He instead chooses try to convince people that there is some profound meaning or life lesson that could be attained from his given scenario. He has yet to give us any account of how thinking of this scenario has had any meaningful influence in his own life, so I remain unconvinced.
I would take it further than simply linguistically, to me even the ability to have an understanding of 3, beyond language simply a conceptual understanding of quantity is dependant on experience as well.
The point im arguing feels like quite a pedantic one although I've seen "worse" ones in philosophy
On July 21 2010 09:10 toadstool wrote: No offense Rhaegarbeast, but your fancy statements are throwing off your own thread. I understand English isn't your first language, but I find your posts hard to follow because there's a lot of fluff and little substance to be gained from each post purely because you go off on a tangent with wild statements which are almost unrelated (except by perhaps a thin thread).
I didn't read most of the thread after the first few pages, because I personally think philosophy is a waste of time in my lifetime (but useful generations down). and also partly because I am a computer programmer.
In my opinion, I wouldn't be thinking WHAT should I be doing. I would be thinking WHY.
WHY am I stuck in this insane prison with this crazy mage being tortured. And through knowing WHY, we'll understand WHO we are, and by understanding ONESELF, you would understand the situation better. (what can change the nature of a man...)
That's my bit from Planescape Torment done. Or perhaps I was never meant to post in this thread (computer programmer etc.)
Well, the idea in Planescape: Torment is that you choose why this happened. You may choose to believe, like I did, that he is the Transcended You and he put you trough all this shit so that you may grow. Or you may choose another explanation and it still manifests. The end does justify the means, but the means create the end. The whole idea of the game is that everything is interconnected and suffering is the price you pay for the ideal that you want to manifest and that living is being is creating. One example I can think of is that if you use the pseudonym Adann too much, in the end you get to meet this Adann. Cute, eh? Profound says I.
On July 22 2010 03:05 Odoakar wrote: Hehe just found out that RhaegarBeast posted this same thing on Tribal Wars forum...always nice to see another TWer around;) it's funny to see that both threads have very similar comments, especially comparisons to TDK dillema
Tribal Wars forum? I don't know such forum. I've posted this on 2+2 and forums.wsphere.com in Bulgarian. Is wsphere TW?
On July 22 2010 07:10 HeavOnEarth wrote: Whoa. 15 pages of text for what i thought to be a pretty straightforward answer. Did i miss something or is it just pages of people flaming the OP
I get flamed for too much replies and some people still adress their posts to me. Can't do the impossible, so I'll just step on the break for a while. I hope I've contributed a little bit.
On July 19 2010 17:52 RhaegarBeast wrote: I've implied that he knows nothing else than the prison. He is as grown-up as a newborn at the time of his awakening.
This actually reminds me of something I've thought up before.
The scenario:
You put a newborn in a dark room, no sight possible. You plug his (we'll just say it's a he) ears. Basically, take away his senses. After 20 years you release him.
The question is:
What is the formula of his existence?
I'd say something around: Life form = DNA + Environment (He can still feel things ofcourse, rather not but that would make it unrealistic)
What is the formula of any person around these forums?
Life form = DNA + Environment + how you were raised + manipulation from the media + etc.
So which of those two is more of a 'pure' life form and thus more (Himself)
Like the situation sketched by RhaegerBeast, I'd say the person would get accommodated to the 'torture' from staying in the jail.
It's all about how the mind is manipulated. Pain can be positive as long as the mind is manipulated enough or perhaps doesn't know any better.
On July 23 2010 09:12 RhaegarBeast wrote: Questions tend to become experiments. Let's turn the prison into Disney World instead.
So the prisoner is being tormented in Disney World instead of a 6x6 cell and there's a secret lever in Disney World that will allow you to kill someone so that you can leave the torment of Disney World? Assuming that being in Disney World is equal torment to the prison you've suggested, what's the practical difference in changing the name of your prison? Otherwise, if you are no longer suggesting that being eternally tormented is part of the given scenario when you change the prison to Disney World, how does it relate at all to the original OP? The problem either remains exactly the same or ends up bearing absolutely no relation to your original scenario. Another example of you attempting to shroud the simplicity of your initial scenario in meaningless extra data...
On July 23 2010 09:12 RhaegarBeast wrote: The goal of philosophy is to realize what you should have done with your life instead.
Wrong again, sir... I suggest you go back and take Philosophy 101 over again if this is what you believe the purpose or goal of philosophy to be.
Philosophy is personal. My answer is - submit to the prison and work with it to make it a better place for all the prisoners and their guards. Your answer will sadly, but inevitably differ at least a little bit, as you are not me. It is a good question whether I'm actually helping by making people think about that. It's just my wish that we somehow found a solution together and not every man for himself.
And yes, it seems that I'm contradicting myself, but together and every man for himself are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
On July 23 2010 09:32 RhaegarBeast wrote: Philosophy is personal. My answer is - submit to the prison and work with it to make it a better place for all the prisoners and their guards. Your answer will sadly, but inevitably differ at least a little bit, as you are not me. It is a good question whether I'm actually helping by making people think about that. It's just my wish that we somehow found a solution together and not every man for himself.
And somehow you couldn't come up with this by watching just about any Disney movie or any number of fables or stories in the world with a similar message?
If that's the point you wanted to get across (cooperation instead of competition), you could've just opened a discussion about Nash's equilibrium and you wouldn't have gotten half of the criticism...
I feel like you had good intentions with opening the discussion, but you didn't have the ability to hit a lot of the key points that should have been addressed if you did indeed mean for this to be a philosophical discussion as opposed to a game theory discussion.
At the risk of oversimplifying (neither of these subjects are really simple), in the given scenario, the "What would you do?" part of it is essentially game theory. You're taking your ideal objective, exploring options, and weighing those various options to come up with what you believe to be the best solution in the given scenario. The philosophical part would generally address the question of why your ideal objective is indeed ideal. In your case, I would ask, why is the other prisoner important? If it is as you state and he's a mere shell of a man, completely ignorant of the world outside, then why is it important at all that he remain alive? Do you believe that human life in and of itself holds some sort of intrinsic value that should be preserved? You also said you'd stay and try to make the prison a better place, but what does that mean and why is your vision for a "better place" actually any better?
This is not a math problem.I know enough of game theory to see that it's useless here. The reason is that no matter how you exploit the system, you open yourself to be exploited at the same rate in some other direction. You could try to play optimal, but that's just being dead. You cannot create something out of nothing, so the question is not how to win the most, as the net result is always zero. The question becomes - What do you want to create for yourself and what are you ready to give up to accomplish your ideal?
I make points in hope that someone else would acknowledge them or at least find them intriguing. It's getting quite obvious that most of you live in quite a different prison than I do.
On July 23 2010 09:57 RhaegarBeast wrote: This is not a math problem.I know enough of game theory to see that it's useless here. The reason is that no matter how you exploit the system, you open yourself to be exploited at the same rate in some other direction. You could try to play optimal, but that's just being dead. You cannot create something out of nothing, so the question is not how to win the most, as the net result is always zero. The question becomes - What do you want to create for yourself and what are you ready to give up to accomplish your ideal?
I make points in hope that someone else would acknowledge them or at least find them intriguing. It's getting quite obvious that most of you live in quite a different prison than I do.
By failing to turn it into a philosophical discussion, you essentially HAVE made it a mere math problem. The question of "What do you want to create for yourself and what are you ready to give up to accomplish your ideal?" isn't a philosophical one. Philosophy would ask, "WHY is this something you want to create for yourself?" Philosophy is not about problem solving. It's about coming to an understanding about yourself and the world, which serves as the basis for problem solving. Philosophy and game theory go hand in hand because your philosophy and values determine the values you assign to different scenarios and objectives in a game theory problem. Your entire thread loses sight of the philosophical end of the problem and instead assumes a certain circumstance to be a desirable one (mutual survival) when this does not necessarily have to be the case depending on one's philosophy.
Despite all of your seemingly fancy statements, you continue to miss the point over and over again and you are so caught up in yourself and your belief in your own "brilliance" that you're completely blind to this simple fact. Get over yourself for a few minutes and actually read through the thread to see if this is, indeed, a philosophical discussion at all at this point. Cryptic statements like your may hear in Chinese Kung Fu movies or the average Japanese anime don't lend any real substance to a discussion nor do they make what you're saying some sort of higher philosophical concept despite what all this media may tell you. Stop trying to sound like Buddha for a bit and come back down to earth with the rest of us so that we can actually have a real discussion. Either that or stop posting and just let this thread die since it's going nowhere anyway.
All you seem to be doing is throwing out statements or suggestions and completely failing to build on them. The Disney World thing is a clear example. So what if the prison IS Disney World? What does that change and why does it matter? If that's the route we're going down, I'll ask "What if the prison is heaven?" Oh, that's so deep and philosophical. I'm going to go make a cup of jasmine tea to reward myself for being so incredibly thoughtful.
On July 23 2010 10:20 RhaegarBeast wrote: You're so fucking deluded that you're making me sick.
Care to elaborate? Or are you just going to continue the same pattern of saying stuff without explaining anything. Sure, I'm being a bit of an ass at this point, but "deluded"? What part of what I said was delusional?
I'd press the damn lever and set myself free. Why would I give a d4m fak about what happends to the other guy? Heck how do I know there is EVEN another guy there?
On July 23 2010 10:42 RhaegarBeast wrote: You've learned how to type, but not how to read. Get a clue, please.
I've read every single word you've written on this thread and my words have been a direct response to your posts. How much of what I wrote have you actually read and thought about? Furthermore, how much have you actually responded to? It's fine if you disagree with me, but the fact that you've failed to respond to the vast majority of questions I asked simply proves to me that you're not interested in all in any real discussion at all. I've posed several relatively simple questions to you in the past few posts. You've responded to none of them.
Instead you choose to call me "delusional" and accuse me of having an inability to read. Maybe you should consider the fact that I'm not alone in my criticism of you or your scenario. Plenty of others throughout the thread have expressed similar views or opinions. Usually when that many people are telling you that something's wrong, it's worth entertaining the idea that something may indeed be wrong.
Wrong again, sir... I suggest you go back and take Philosophy 101 over again if this is what you believe the purpose or goal of philosophy to be.
And your wrong too, if you want to truley learn philosophy. You dont take a course. YOU THINK.
Did Rene Descarte take a course on metaphysics when he came up with the Cartesian dualism?
And the goal of philosophy is simple, to realize. it doesn't have to be some emotional shiz like OMG MY LIFE SUX,PHILOSOPHY WILL SHOW ME ZE PATH !
-.- Philosophy, the pursuit of knowledge AKA realization through logic and reaosn.
Where did I say that philosophy is truly learned through a course? My point was that if he's as off base about what philosophy is, he should go take a basic course before speaking on the matter. Philosophy courses will not teach you everything you need to know, but frankly, you're a fool if you don't believe that they hold value in educating people on the subject. What's the point of sitting there and thinking if you have no idea HOW to think? While people like Socrates and Descarte may not have taken a formal course on the subject, they learned from studying other thinkers. It's not as if these people just sat down one day and formed a world view without any prior education.
Just as science is built on the shoulders of our forefathers, philosophy is too. Otherwise, we'd all just be sitting down reinventing the wheel over and over again. It's important to study not only contemporary thought, but philosophy as it has evolved throughout history. There's much to learn from understanding how our predecessors thought and why they thought that way. This is all besides the fact that when you enter a philosophical discussion, there needs to be some sort of common academic ground on which to form a discussion. Philosophy classes (as with a class in any subject) are an invaluable tool for creating a relatively standard ground to meet on.
By the way, what would you know about Descarte if you didn't study anything about him? Education is important...
You don't give a shit about my opinion and I don't give a shit about yours. Alright?
The only standard people need is to respect each others differences and find the truth for themselves. And that's just.. you know.. my opinion.
To read philosophy is to acquaint yourself with its history and with the opinions of famous people. It's good I guess, but I hate when people point to "authorities" in an open debate. I myself find many renowned philosophers to be criminally insane. (Nietzsche anyone?)
On July 23 2010 11:04 RhaegarBeast wrote: You don't give a shit about my opinion and I don't give a shit about yours. Alright?
There's a difference between expressing the fact that I disagree with your view and the way you're presenting them and not "giving a shit" about your opinion. If I didn't care at all about what you had to say, I wouldn't be wasting my time typing all this. I find it a bit funny that you assume that I don't care about what you have to say just because I don't agree with it or find you to be in error. Frankly, I was hoping your next post would actually be a real response, but again, I was disappointed.
But then again, you've made your position quite clear in this post that you don't give a shit about what I have to say and as such, I will assume that you probably don't have any intention of responding to it. When you actually want to speak like an adult rather than whine about people not seeing things your way, maybe I'll post again. Until, then, however, I'll leave this thread to you so you can continue you "discussion" with only people that agree with you even though I don't see how that is any real discussion at all.
On July 23 2010 11:04 RhaegarBeast wrote: The only standard people need is to respect each others differences and find the truth for themselves. And that's just.. you know.. my opinion.
I agree that respecting differences is important, but when you enter a discussion, it's important to both give and take. Discussion is dialogue. If you're refusing to respond to people who disagree with you with a "Let's agree to disagree." attitude and refuse to take anything from the discussion, then what's the point? It's not a discussion, then. It's a lecture. I don't know how many philosophical discussions or debates you've been in, but questioning the validity or relevance of a view is a pretty common thing. If the notion that someone might not believe your opinion or the manner in which you expressed it is a valid one makes you uncomfortable or upset, maybe you shouldn't get involved in such discussions...
On July 23 2010 11:04 RhaegarBeast wrote:To read philosophy is to acquaint yourself with its history and with the opinions of famous people. It's good I guess, but I hate when people point to "authorities" in an open debate. I myself find many renowned philosophers to be criminally insane. (Nietzsche anyone?)
Those people are famous because their views were instrumental in shaping the way we see the world today. When people bring them up, it's usually to refer to the pattern of thought or belief that they're associated with. It's far easier to mention Socrates than actually have to explain everything that you would learn about him or his pattern of thought. While I agree that famous people aren't necessarily the ultimate authority, they can play an important role in discussion.
And Nietzsche did actually go insane in the end btw...
I put a ton of effort into everything I wrote in this topic and I'd rather not waste my energy with people that do not appreciate it in any meaningful to me way.
Then you're not explaining yourself very well, and that's not a deficiency on anyone else's part. You can still explain things in a civil way, or choose not to reply.
On July 23 2010 11:21 RhaegarBeast wrote: Please ban me. FUCKING IDIOTS
Wow... now you're just coming off like someone who's sore that other people can't appreciate your personal views. Are you really that insecure about your beliefs that you need to take personal offense when people disagree with them? Yeah, you may have put a ton of work into your posts. Do you think my posts just magically typed themselves? Or anyone else's, for the matter. Get over yourself, man...
Id press the level as fast as possible. Fuck that other guy, its not like I even know he really exists. As long as its clear that pressing the level releases me, the other guy is fucked unless hes really quick.
On July 23 2010 11:46 USn wrote: Ok, I'd love to read seventeen pages of rhaegar getting gradually more raged, but actually I wouldn't.
Were there any interesting conclusions reached based on the original post?
It's actually a pretty amusing read... He only started raging in the past 2 pages or so.
RhaegarBeast's "solution" is on Page 16:
On July 23 2010 09:32 RhaegarBeast wrote: Philosophy is personal. My answer is - submit to the prison and work with it to make it a better place for all the prisoners and their guards. Your answer will sadly, but inevitably differ at least a little bit, as you are not me. It is a good question whether I'm actually helping by making people think about that. It's just my wish that we somehow found a solution together and not every man for himself.
And yes, it seems that I'm contradicting myself, but together and every man for himself are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Where did I say that philosophy is truly learned through a course? My point was that if he's as off base about what philosophy is, he should go take a basic course before speaking on the matter. Philosophy courses will not teach you everything you need to know, but frankly, you're a fool if you don't believe that they hold value in educating people on the subject.
well yeah duh i agree to that, sry for misunderstanding , ima qq nao
What's the point of sitting there and thinking if you have no idea HOW to think? While people like Socrates and Descarte may not have taken a formal course on the subject, they learned from studying other thinkers. It's not as if these people just sat down one day and formed a world view without any prior education.
nope you dont seem to understand logic and reason. The moment we come alive, our brain is thinking. And our brain (human brain) thinks in a certain way and only that way, logically and reasonably. This is how everything is created, by logic which is innate in all of us. So your saying plato learned philosophy from someone else? Well where did that person learn philosophy from? Eventually there was SOMEONE who just looked at the leaf falling down and suggested that "things fall". Philosophy is realized with/without people tellling you. The advantage of a philosophy course is that you get to be more exposed to that material and allows for focus. So I do agree that philosophy classes are important but not nearly as important as a person that can actually utilize logic themself. If all a person can do is study history, what descartes said, what Aristotle said, they are as dumb as any average joe on the street. Well maybe smarter since they could at least understand.
Just as science is built on the shoulders of our forefathers, philosophy is too.
both are built upon logic. philosophy itself is logic so that doesn't exactly make sense but whatever. Everyone seems to have their own definitions for philosophy, not that it matters.
By the way, what would you know about Descarte if you didn't study anything about him? Education is important...
and why do we need to know about descarte? I came up with parts of metaphysics myself just by thinking at a young age. 1000000000000000000000 of other people came up with shit like this, people just dont bother to write it down.
I'm not that bright, but I feel like 90% of what's coming outta Rhaegar is Crap. And that Jin guy actually has a propper education and didn't get all his newfound knowledge taking drugs and smoking weed for xx number of years.
Kinda like seeing that stickydrama girl arguing vs. Ken Robinson xD
ps, I would ask the mage "what lever", and have him come show me. Then pretend I got all spooked and look shockingly behind him, and the second he turns around to check it out....
I PULL OUT THE LEVER AND STAB HIM IN THE EYE!! Killing him, thus negatating all the magickz he's ever cast!!
Wrote a whole long response to virgozero and actually posted it, but I realize that I've no interest in continuing this discussion anymore, especially since the OP has already been banned by his own request and this new discussion really doesn't pertain to the original post at all. I've lost enough sleep over it, anyway... -_-
Maybe if this is somehow still going in a few days, I'll post again, but I suspect the thread will die before that.
And how is that not a prisoner's dilemma? Slightly changed from the one in the links, but it's still it.
The whole point of the prisoner's dilemma is that each participant is independently better off defecting, but as a whole they would be both better off if they cooperated. The mishmash in this thread doesn't seem to have that property, at least not as far as I can tell (although in the interest of being confusing, the fellow kept redefining the "payoffs" for pulling the lever or staying put.)
On July 23 2010 12:48 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: That doesn't mean he's a troll. But I hated this thread. Glad its like won't be posted again. Close?
I thought I'd leave it open because a few people started making decent posts after his meltdown. If everyone keeps talking about him then I'll close it but if people can get any kind of discussion going then I'll let it slowly die and get bumped down like other topics. If you don't have anything to say then don't post and, assuming it's bad, the topic will remove itself without my intervention.
And how is that not a prisoner's dilemma? Slightly changed from the one in the links, but it's still it.
The whole point of the prisoner's dilemma is that each participant is independently better off defecting, but as a whole they would be both better off if they cooperated. The mishmash in this thread doesn't seem to have that property, at least not as far as I can tell (although in the interest of being confusing, the fellow kept redefining the "payoffs" for pulling the lever or staying put.)
I think that one thing you are missing here is the dilemma between staying in a prison for the rest of your life or dying. Some might consider death the better alternative. The prisoner might even do the other one a favor by pulling the lever. But if there is no way of communication between the prisoners, they will never know what the other one thinks.
On July 24 2010 02:22 101TFP wrote: I think that one thing you are missing here is the dilemma between staying in a prison for the rest of your life or dying. Some might consider death the better alternative. The prisoner might even do the other one a favor by pulling the lever. But if there is no way of communication between the prisoners, they will never know what the other one thinks.
OK, but the difference between that and the PD is that the PD poses an interesting, objective question about rational cooperation, amenable to discussion and argument. The other "dilemma" is all about whether you prefer death or a lot of suffering, which is just a topic suitable for a lot of bullshitting that nobody will ever agree on or learn anything from.
So um, I read about 85% of all 18 pages. That in itself should be some sort of accomplishment.
There are some things I wanna say but first, you Norwegians are hilarious. One of you said you'd pull the lever twice which made me lol irl and another one said to just stab the mage in the eye... which made me lol irl after I pictured that in my head.
Anyways, on to more serious things. I didn't take a methodical approach to this, so none of this scientific stuff, game theory, utilitarianism etc. I kinda jsut... thought about it. The situation was actually quite interesting to me and maybe it's because I wasn't getting all serious about it.
Most people saw the situation as either pull or not pull (this applies to both situation... which was mighty confusing when he introduced the version 1.0 or wtvr the fuck it was). I pretty much fell into this group of people except for the fact that my first reaction was "Who is this mage and why is this mage all-powerful?".
But as the discussion went on, many interesting points were brought up. My favourite being how the idea of free will and the idea of being alive might lead you to kill yourself. Also, I assumed that we were put into this prison from the outside world meaning I would have all my life experiences etc. Not once did I think that I started off in this prison and it's all I know. But I think that drastically changes the scenario and requires a completely different... "solution"? maybe "course of action" fits better.
In the end I couldn't come up with a solid answer and was just grateful that I'm not actually in that sort of situation. I know that this freestyle sort of thinking might be a huge waste of time but it was definately interesting and it made me stay for 18 pages and part of me wants to believe that that's what OP was looking for... be it true or not lol.
Suppose prisoner B pulls it instantly, and B pulls it in some time, or B never pulls the lever
The solution to all the situations is to pull the lever before B in order to live. Cause in all situations he has some malicious intent to kill you, or will force to make you suffer for eternity in the last case. In all cases it is justified to pull the lever, and kill the person that wants to kill you, or make you suffer. If you do not pull the lever, than you are choosing to be a martyr and suffer for an unknown person, or die to unknown person. In my opinion, the only people who would choose be, are those people that have a incredible sense of ethics, or are very religious.
There is also another view if you are considering this problem on a theoretical basis
a) You don't know if the mage is telling you the truth. - Maybe there is no second prisoner. - Maybe the lever kills you and sets the other prisoner free. - You really can't 100% know the levers function without pulling it for sure. b) You are identical to the other prisoner - Theoretically you'll pull the lever at the same time, or go through the same thought process, as long as you're not dead, and regardless of a) holding. That means the other person hasn't pulled the lever either, meaning he is still thinking about it, or at least he is considering it ethically. c) If you have only one choice, pull the lever, or not pull the lever over an infinite amount of time, you are in actuality forced to pull it, there is no choice. This is considering if the other prisoner exists and is identical in everyday to you or that he doesn't exist at all.
Considering a b c, if you are not dead then there is no reason again not to pull the lever right away. If a holds and there is no other prisoner, it sets you free. If there is another prisoner, you'll either set the prisoner free, or even the prisoner kills you, either case acceptable. Since there is no reason to believe there is another prisoner without being dead yourself pull. If b or c holds, you're fucked no matter what, you both die, or you both stay in prison forever, or you never really had a choice.
On July 19 2010 16:57 RhaegarBeast wrote: The original prisoner may die, but he's more than just a prisoner after he's made his choice. He has found something akin to free will and perhaps something will remain in his place...
Not that he can experience. He is dead therefore anything that comes of his choice will be of no significant or pleasure to him. All he knows is nothing. Even if you like these leaving something behind ideas they are not satisfactory to the selfish person.
Also it doesn't take choosing who dies to acquire free will so I would hardly consider it a benefit here.
I don't know how to express what I don't like about the statement you made other than I feel its a stretch.
EPT
