|
On March 26 2015 00:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 22:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 25 2015 20:18 Gowerly wrote:This sounds like an extension of Pascal's Wager to which the answer in this situation being "No". As the payoff is finite, but the fail case is infinite. Pascal's wager is different in that in the hypothetical question posed above you get to choose whereas in Pascal's wager you're expected to be able to toggle your belief on and off at will. But yeah infinity is harsh. Being able to toggle isn't really the point of the Pascal's Wager I feel... In Pascal's Wager the assumption is that there is a yes/no answer in death wherein we either believe in god (gain everything and lose nothing) or don't believe in god (gain nothing and lose nothing). He posits that believing in the finite vs the infinite is unreasonable, so one has to believe in god because not believing has no gains. In the posters question, it is reversed. If one gets to choose to be happy now, even if it means possibly being eternally punished--then which should be chosen. Much like Pascal's Wager, one should never bet against the infinite when the opposing side is the finite--only unreasonable people do that.
Well Pascal's wager is an argument commonly used to tell the people who don't believe in God that their stance is unreasonable because they have everything to gain by believing in God, which is a way to "force" belief in God, it is not? Yet people can't "choose" to believe. They do, or they don't. They might be "convinced" by the argument by fear, but that's a coercive way to get people to believe in God, it not? Does it constitute real belief in the first place?
Nonetheless the "wager" poses a question to which there are two possibilities and the idea that there are two options only is laughable.
|
On March 26 2015 00:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 22:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 25 2015 20:18 Gowerly wrote:This sounds like an extension of Pascal's Wager to which the answer in this situation being "No". As the payoff is finite, but the fail case is infinite. Pascal's wager is different in that in the hypothetical question posed above you get to choose whereas in Pascal's wager you're expected to be able to toggle your belief on and off at will. But yeah infinity is harsh. Being able to toggle isn't really the point of the Pascal's Wager I feel... In Pascal's Wager the assumption is that there is a yes/no answer in death wherein we either believe in god (gain everything and lose nothing) or don't believe in god (gain nothing and lose nothing). He posits that believing in the finite vs the infinite is unreasonable, so one has to believe in god because not believing has no gains. In the posters question, it is reversed. If one gets to choose to be happy now, even if it means possibly being eternally punished--then which should be chosen. Much like Pascal's Wager, one should never bet against the infinite when the opposing side is the finite--only unreasonable people do that.
I could imagine desperate, or valorous (among other types of) people taking the offer too. If I could right the world's wrongs and it only took a small chance at my own personal eternal suffering I would at least consider it. Probably more so if I had kids.
I mean as it stands I already give eternal suffering more than a .01% chance, damn Catholic brainwashing. Not sure if I'll be a deathbed Atheist or not but if I was, I'd have nothing to lose by taking the deal in a universe with a 'Christian' God.
|
To be fair, 0.01% is pretty low. That is 1 in 10,000 people who end up in eternal damnation, while 9,999 people get their wish.
Your wish doesn't have to be finite either. It could be to live eternally in blissful happiness. Now there is a pretty good deal.
Of course, if the wish is limited to realistic worldly matters then things change a bit, but there are still some pretty awesome things worth wishing for (all suffering to end, for instance) that are worth that 0.01% chance of eternal damnation.
|
your Country52797 Posts
I'd rather live as happily as I do now than risk eternal torture, personally.
(this is from a selfish point of view, when considering everyone I would probably go for it)
|
On March 26 2015 05:38 Acrofales wrote:
To be fair, 0.01% is pretty low. That is 1 in 10,000 people who end up in eternal damnation, while 9,999 people get their wish.
Your wish doesn't have to be finite either. It could be to live eternally in blissful happiness. Now there is a pretty good deal.
Of course, if the wish is limited to realistic worldly matters then things change a bit, but there are still some pretty awesome things worth wishing for (all suffering to end, for instance) that are worth that 0.01% chance of eternal damnation.
Interesting point with the eternal happiness. Not sure the question includes that as an option though. Also it's 0.01 chance, not 0.01%. So it is a 1% risk of screwed.
|
I really don't want to have "anything I want" anyhow, as it seems to cheapen everything when I have it all.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On March 25 2015 14:21 Shiragaku wrote:
Would you accept the ability to have anything you want, be it personal or social, but there is a .01 chance of the wish going wrong which would result in you being tortured for all of eternity?
I assume "anything you want" is restricted so that I can't make my first 'wish' nullify the failure chance? Or else it's just a game of 99% chance you're god, 1% chance you get tortured forever.
Also to those of you who think having anything you want would be boring, you obviously don't have aspirations to explore deep space while riding a unicorn, blessing every planet in your travels with life.
|
On March 26 2015 11:28 Fecalfeast wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 14:21 Shiragaku wrote:
Would you accept the ability to have anything you want, be it personal or social, but there is a .01 chance of the wish going wrong which would result in you being tortured for all of eternity? I assume "anything you want" is restricted so that I can't make my first 'wish' nullify the failure chance? Or else it's just a game of 99% chance you're god, 1% chance you get tortured forever. Also to those of you who think having anything you want would be boring, you obviously don't have aspirations to explore deep space while riding a unicorn, blessing every planet in your travels with life.
Holy shit! Unicorns! Give Fecalfeast that wish right now! :D
|
On March 26 2015 00:27 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 00:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 25 2015 22:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 25 2015 20:18 Gowerly wrote:This sounds like an extension of Pascal's Wager to which the answer in this situation being "No". As the payoff is finite, but the fail case is infinite. Pascal's wager is different in that in the hypothetical question posed above you get to choose whereas in Pascal's wager you're expected to be able to toggle your belief on and off at will. But yeah infinity is harsh. Being able to toggle isn't really the point of the Pascal's Wager I feel... In Pascal's Wager the assumption is that there is a yes/no answer in death wherein we either believe in god (gain everything and lose nothing) or don't believe in god (gain nothing and lose nothing). He posits that believing in the finite vs the infinite is unreasonable, so one has to believe in god because not believing has no gains. In the posters question, it is reversed. If one gets to choose to be happy now, even if it means possibly being eternally punished--then which should be chosen. Much like Pascal's Wager, one should never bet against the infinite when the opposing side is the finite--only unreasonable people do that. Well Pascal's wager is an argument commonly used to tell the people who don't believe in God that their stance is unreasonable because they have everything to gain by believing in God, which is a way to "force" belief in God, it is not? Yet people can't "choose" to believe. They do, or they don't. They might be "convinced" by the argument by fear, but that's a coercive way to get people to believe in God, it not? Does it constitute real belief in the first place? Nonetheless the "wager" poses a question to which there are two possibilities and the idea that there are two options only is laughable.
Pascal's wager only works as a religious argument in the totality context. It can muffed up if you use percentages instead.
Would you risk 100% of your total happiness in the off chance god exists?
|
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On March 26 2015 11:28 Fecalfeast wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 14:21 Shiragaku wrote:
Would you accept the ability to have anything you want, be it personal or social, but there is a .01 chance of the wish going wrong which would result in you being tortured for all of eternity? I assume "anything you want" is restricted so that I can't make my first 'wish' nullify the failure chance? Or else it's just a game of 99% chance you're god, 1% chance you get tortured forever. Also to those of you who think having anything you want would be boring, you obviously don't have aspirations to explore deep space while riding a unicorn, blessing every planet in your travels with life.
Clever bastard.
|
On March 26 2015 11:28 Fecalfeast wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 14:21 Shiragaku wrote:
Would you accept the ability to have anything you want, be it personal or social, but there is a .01 chance of the wish going wrong which would result in you being tortured for all of eternity? I assume "anything you want" is restricted so that I can't make my first 'wish' nullify the failure chance? Or else it's just a game of 99% chance you're god, 1% chance you get tortured forever. Also to those of you who think having anything you want would be boring, you obviously don't have aspirations to explore deep space while riding a unicorn, blessing every planet in your travels with life.
Your right, my goal is to travel deep space in a penis shaped rocket ship with laz0rs and make humanities first contact with an alien species via peeing on them from orbit
|
Canada11355 Posts
On March 26 2015 11:44 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 11:28 Fecalfeast wrote:On March 25 2015 14:21 Shiragaku wrote:
Would you accept the ability to have anything you want, be it personal or social, but there is a .01 chance of the wish going wrong which would result in you being tortured for all of eternity? I assume "anything you want" is restricted so that I can't make my first 'wish' nullify the failure chance? Or else it's just a game of 99% chance you're god, 1% chance you get tortured forever. Also to those of you who think having anything you want would be boring, you obviously don't have aspirations to explore deep space while riding a unicorn, blessing every planet in your travels with life. Your right, my goal is to travel deep space in a penis shaped rocket ship with laz0rs and make humanities first contact with an alien species via peeing on them from orbit
My right what?
|
On March 26 2015 11:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 00:27 Djzapz wrote:On March 26 2015 00:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 25 2015 22:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 25 2015 20:18 Gowerly wrote:This sounds like an extension of Pascal's Wager to which the answer in this situation being "No". As the payoff is finite, but the fail case is infinite. Pascal's wager is different in that in the hypothetical question posed above you get to choose whereas in Pascal's wager you're expected to be able to toggle your belief on and off at will. But yeah infinity is harsh. Being able to toggle isn't really the point of the Pascal's Wager I feel... In Pascal's Wager the assumption is that there is a yes/no answer in death wherein we either believe in god (gain everything and lose nothing) or don't believe in god (gain nothing and lose nothing). He posits that believing in the finite vs the infinite is unreasonable, so one has to believe in god because not believing has no gains. In the posters question, it is reversed. If one gets to choose to be happy now, even if it means possibly being eternally punished--then which should be chosen. Much like Pascal's Wager, one should never bet against the infinite when the opposing side is the finite--only unreasonable people do that. Well Pascal's wager is an argument commonly used to tell the people who don't believe in God that their stance is unreasonable because they have everything to gain by believing in God, which is a way to "force" belief in God, it is not? Yet people can't "choose" to believe. They do, or they don't. They might be "convinced" by the argument by fear, but that's a coercive way to get people to believe in God, it not? Does it constitute real belief in the first place? Nonetheless the "wager" poses a question to which there are two possibilities and the idea that there are two options only is laughable. Pascal's wager only works as a religious argument in the totality context. It can muffed up if you use percentages instead. Would you risk 100% of your total happiness in the off chance god exists?
I'm not sure I understand the question but I reject it outright because it's a false dichotomy in the first place.
|
On March 26 2015 12:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 11:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 26 2015 00:27 Djzapz wrote:On March 26 2015 00:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 25 2015 22:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 25 2015 20:18 Gowerly wrote:This sounds like an extension of Pascal's Wager to which the answer in this situation being "No". As the payoff is finite, but the fail case is infinite. Pascal's wager is different in that in the hypothetical question posed above you get to choose whereas in Pascal's wager you're expected to be able to toggle your belief on and off at will. But yeah infinity is harsh. Being able to toggle isn't really the point of the Pascal's Wager I feel... In Pascal's Wager the assumption is that there is a yes/no answer in death wherein we either believe in god (gain everything and lose nothing) or don't believe in god (gain nothing and lose nothing). He posits that believing in the finite vs the infinite is unreasonable, so one has to believe in god because not believing has no gains. In the posters question, it is reversed. If one gets to choose to be happy now, even if it means possibly being eternally punished--then which should be chosen. Much like Pascal's Wager, one should never bet against the infinite when the opposing side is the finite--only unreasonable people do that. Well Pascal's wager is an argument commonly used to tell the people who don't believe in God that their stance is unreasonable because they have everything to gain by believing in God, which is a way to "force" belief in God, it is not? Yet people can't "choose" to believe. They do, or they don't. They might be "convinced" by the argument by fear, but that's a coercive way to get people to believe in God, it not? Does it constitute real belief in the first place? Nonetheless the "wager" poses a question to which there are two possibilities and the idea that there are two options only is laughable. Pascal's wager only works as a religious argument in the totality context. It can muffed up if you use percentages instead. Would you risk 100% of your total happiness in the off chance god exists? I'm not sure I understand the question but I reject it outright because it's a false dichotomy in the first place.
What is false about it?
Pascal's argument is simple.
It posits that we exist. And that after we die--either nothing happens, or something happens.
If you believe nothing happens when you die--either you're right and nothing happens, or you're wrong and something happens.
If you believe that something happens when you die--either you're right and something happens, or you're wrong and nothing happens.
The cost being wrong when you don't believe something happens is that it happens.
The cost of being wrong when you believe that something happens is that nothing happens.
Believers have nothing to lose for being wrong.
Non-believers have nothing to gain for being right.
That is the core of Pascal's argument.
In a more modern context, instead of two options we now have N options of what happens after we die. Believing that nothing happens after we die is one of N options--the N-1 options being believing that something does happen when we die. The argument remains the same if we look at it from a totality aspect.
You have N options to choose from, but only one of those N options rewards you nothing (believing nothing happens when you die) while all other N options offers the chance of *something* if they're right. Logically, if you care about what happens after you die its best to pick *ONE* of them.
The only thing false about the argument is the assumption of cost.
People who believe nothing happens after they die do not hold value to something they don't believe exists. They are being asked to throw away 100% of their happiness as opposed to people who believe in afterlives who see it as only losing X% of their happiness.
How would a believer answer this question:
Would you spend 100% of your time in hell, in the off chance of being wrong or 100% of your time in heaven, in the off chance of being right?
Believers don't have an answer for that because the cost for faith is different for them than for non-believers. Non-believers believe they are already in the blissful place and are being asked to leave it while believers are trying to make a value proposition of current value vs unknown value.
But the actual dichotomy of Pascal's Wager is not wrong. There might be N values vs 2 values--but only one of the N values has a different conclusion than the others. Making it N vs N-1 instead of Atheist vs Christians. The only flaw in the argument is the cost analysis.
|
Hong Kong4308 Posts
I am surprised my question went towards religion, but I guess that was to be expected since this kind of torture has been mostly a religious thing. I originally wanted to find out how much people were willing to sacrifice for the greater good, even at the expensive of something so horrid, even though the chances of it are small. Many people are more than willing to part with their lives to build something that they desire so much and even speak of living in such a place while denying that experience at the same time.
Now, would people be willing to sacrifice not just their lives and denying the privilege of living in their ideal place, but would those same people be willing to risk suffering something so grim and horrid that they will give up the chance to create a heaven on Earth, even for those who perhaps need it the most?
For example, would risking an experience worse than any of the horrors of genocide for eternity be worthwhile in stopping such an event?
Second question and even stupider one. My head chef told me that he does not go after white girls because he said that if you stare into their face long enough, they look like men and since he is not gay or bi, he cannot feel any attraction towards them. Can anyone confirm such an experience and would my chef be gay if he was attracted towards white women, from, I guess a deontological perspective since he accepted them as guys?
|
Canada11355 Posts
I think anyone who likes girls is gay
|
On March 26 2015 13:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 12:44 Djzapz wrote:On March 26 2015 11:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 26 2015 00:27 Djzapz wrote:On March 26 2015 00:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 25 2015 22:02 Djzapz wrote:On March 25 2015 20:18 Gowerly wrote:This sounds like an extension of Pascal's Wager to which the answer in this situation being "No". As the payoff is finite, but the fail case is infinite. Pascal's wager is different in that in the hypothetical question posed above you get to choose whereas in Pascal's wager you're expected to be able to toggle your belief on and off at will. But yeah infinity is harsh. Being able to toggle isn't really the point of the Pascal's Wager I feel... In Pascal's Wager the assumption is that there is a yes/no answer in death wherein we either believe in god (gain everything and lose nothing) or don't believe in god (gain nothing and lose nothing). He posits that believing in the finite vs the infinite is unreasonable, so one has to believe in god because not believing has no gains. In the posters question, it is reversed. If one gets to choose to be happy now, even if it means possibly being eternally punished--then which should be chosen. Much like Pascal's Wager, one should never bet against the infinite when the opposing side is the finite--only unreasonable people do that. Well Pascal's wager is an argument commonly used to tell the people who don't believe in God that their stance is unreasonable because they have everything to gain by believing in God, which is a way to "force" belief in God, it is not? Yet people can't "choose" to believe. They do, or they don't. They might be "convinced" by the argument by fear, but that's a coercive way to get people to believe in God, it not? Does it constitute real belief in the first place? Nonetheless the "wager" poses a question to which there are two possibilities and the idea that there are two options only is laughable. Pascal's wager only works as a religious argument in the totality context. It can muffed up if you use percentages instead. Would you risk 100% of your total happiness in the off chance god exists? I'm not sure I understand the question but I reject it outright because it's a false dichotomy in the first place. What is false about it? Pascal's argument is simple. It posits that we exist. And that after we die--either nothing happens, or something happens. If you believe nothing happens when you die--either you're right and nothing happens, or you're wrong and something happens. If you believe that something happens when you die--either you're right and something happens, or you're wrong and nothing happens. The cost being wrong when you don't believe something happens is that it happens. The cost of being wrong when you believe that something happens is that nothing happens. Believers have nothing to lose for being wrong. Non-believers have nothing to gain for being right. That is the core of Pascal's argument. In a more modern context, instead of two options we now have N options of what happens after we die. Believing that nothing happens after we die is one of N options--the N-1 options being believing that something does happen when we die. The argument remains the same if we look at it from a totality aspect. You have N options to choose from, but only one of those N options rewards you nothing (believing nothing happens when you die) while all other N options offers the chance of *something* if they're right. Logically, if you care about what happens after you die its best to pick *ONE* of them. The only thing false about the argument is the assumption of cost. People who believe nothing happens after they die do not hold value to something they don't believe exists. They are being asked to throw away 100% of their happiness as opposed to people who believe in afterlives who see it as only losing X% of their happiness. How would a believer answer this question: Would you spend 100% of your time in hell, in the off chance of being wrong or 100% of your time in heaven, in the off chance of being right? Believers don't have an answer for that because the cost for faith is different for them than for non-believers. Non-believers believe they are already in the blissful place and are being asked to leave it while believers are trying to make a value proposition of current value vs unknown value. But the actual dichotomy of Pascal's Wager is not wrong. There might be N values vs 2 values--but only one of the N values has a different conclusion than the others. Making it N vs N-1 instead of Atheist vs Christians. The only flaw in the argument is the cost analysis.
Except it is still a false dichotomy. Because you can't believe in N of those options. You have to believe in exactly one. Also N is infinite. I personally believe there is a wrathful little green omnipotent teapot floating between mars and jupiter. If you don't believe in it, it will torture your soul for all eternity. Also, if you think the teapot is blue, pink or any other shade of green that is different from the exact shade I am thinking of right now.
So your choices in Pascal's wager are actually to pick one out of an infinite amount of options, some of which end in eternal damnation, and some of which don't. Thank God we have some help in the form of our experiences and observations to help us choose the right little teapot to believe in!
|
Belief is not a simple, singular engagement with an idea, and this notion that one must pick a single belief is inconsistent with how the conscious and subconscious mind works.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the question already rules out 'wat if i wish to void the question' kind of answers because it said 'something goes wrong...' so your wish would never preclude the geni from owning you for eternity.
i'd pick the wish and would also defend the choice as rational.
|
On March 26 2015 20:56 oneofthem wrote:
i'd pick the wish and would also defend the choice as rational.
You can't end a post like that, wtf. >_>
I mean, you have to argue your point if you claim that it is the rational choice, especially after many others have argued for the opposite position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
