LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[Kraftster]

Since he has created the watch out of the available materials, no.

Hmm, interesting.

So disassembly/reassembly results in a different object. What about the replacement of a part without complete disassembly?

That would be boat B and I have no answer for that.
At least not one that logically cohesive with what ibe written in the above posts.

Cool. Its really more or less a paradox based upon our common sense perception of identity. I don't really know any good solutions.

[columbia]

Is it a paradox maybe the answer for boat B is based in emotion, rather than logic. If I replace a minor detail here and there, I still feel like I have the sane boat. But if I continue that process, I might eventually feel like I have a new boat. Which effectively makes it a new boat.

[columbia]

I walked past the freight elevator at work today and saw a completely deconstructed wooden chair.

I thought of this thread and grinned.

[Kraftster]

lolol, I love it.

[Kraftster]

Okay, gotta keep this thing alive. This is sort of a game theory exercise, but it has some philosophical implications.

You've been kidnapped by a creature that claims to have the power of foresight. The creature wants to play a game with you. He shows you two containers. One is translucent and has a beautiful gold vase inside, which the creature explains is worth about $1,000 (Container 1). You cannot see through the other box, but the creature explains that there are two possibilities for what is inside (Container 2). One possibility is that there is a spider in Container 2, which is worth nothing. The second possibility is the original Mona Lisa is inside Container 2, which is worth $50,000,000.

The creature gives you the opportunity to pick (a) just Container 1, (b) just Container 2, or (c) both of the containers. Before making your pick, the creature explains that he has already predicted what he thinks you will choose and he is almost always right. Based upon his prior prediction, he has already put either the spider or the Mona Lisa in Container 2. The contents of Container 2 will not change based upon what you pick. When predicting your decision and making the decision of what to put in the containers, if he thinks that you will choose just Container 2, he will have put the Mona Lisa in there; if he thinks that you will choose either both Container 1 and Container 2 or just Container 1, he will put the Spider in container 2.

What do you choose?

[columbia]

I assume that the creature predicts that I will go for the low risk/high reward option and choose both of them.
I therefore choose Container 2 and hope that I get the painting.

[PensFanInDC]

I kick the creature in the nuts and sell him to a carnival for $50.

[columbia]

I kick the creature in the nuts and sell him to a carnival for $50.

Would you like to exercise your free will and give a different answer?

[Kraftster]

I assume that the creature predicts that I will go for the low risk/high reward option and choose both of them.
I therefore choose Container 2 and hope that I get the painting.

If he thinks you will choose both there will be a spider in Container 2?

[PensFanInDC]

I kick the creature in the nuts and sell him to a carnival for $50.

Would you like to exercise your free will and give a different answer?

Nope...sticking with the kick to the nuts.

A creature with the ability to see the future and be right "most" of the time isn't worth much.

[columbia]

I assume that the creature predicts that I will go for the low risk/high reward option and choose both of them.
I therefore choose Container 2 and hope that I get the painting.

If he thinks you will choose both there will be a spider in Container 2?

That's my assumption.
Then again, I don't know whether or not he wants a particular outcome or if he just wants the satisfaction of predicting my choice.

[Gaucho]

I highly recommend http://chaospet.com/. Awesome site.

[Kraftster]

Isaac Asimov's awesome response to the hypo above:

I would, without hesitation, take both boxes . . . I am myself a determinist, but it is perfectly clear to me that any human being worthy of being considered a human being (including most certainly myself) would prefer free will, if such a thing could exist. . . Now, then, suppose you take both boxes and it turns out (as it almost certainly will) that God has foreseen this and placed nothing in the second box. You will then, at least, have expressed your willingness to gamble on his nonomniscience and on your own free will and will have willingly given up a million dollars for the sake of that willingness-itself a snap of the finger in the face of the Almighty and a vote, however futile, for free will. . . And, of course, if God has muffed and left a million dollars in the box, then not only will you have gained that million, but far more important you will have demonstrated God's nonomniscience.

[columbia]

Isaac Asimov's awesome response to the hypo above:

I would, without hesitation, take both boxes . . . I am myself a determinist, but it is perfectly clear to me that any human being worthy of being considered a human being (including most certainly myself) would prefer free will, if such a thing could exist. . . Now, then, suppose you take both boxes and it turns out (as it almost certainly will) that God has foreseen this and placed nothing in the second box. You will then, at least, have expressed your willingness to gamble on his nonomniscience and on your own free will and will have willingly given up a million dollars for the sake of that willingness-itself a snap of the finger in the face of the Almighty and a vote, however futile, for free will. . . And, of course, if God has muffed and left a million dollars in the box, then not only will you have gained that million, but far more important you will have demonstrated God's nonomniscience.

I hadn't read that before, but that type thinking was what was driving my choice.
Only in reserve.
I assumed that the entity would predict my behavior as described above and therefore place the spider in the 2nd container.
By selecting only the 2nd box, I feel that I am "tricking" the entity and maximizing my chance at getting the painting.

So the rational choice for me is the one that would be perceived as the least rational and therefore the one I am less likely to make.

[count2infinity]

does the creature kill you and eat you if you choose incorrectly?

i don't think you'd find anyone that wouldn't take both boxes, but as asimov said (i think...i only ever took one philosophy class, lol) what are your intentions? are you trying to maximize your gains, take what you can get or are you trying to prove that the creature doesn't have any foresight at all?

[Kraftster]

Assuming its about maximizing gains, I'd absolutely take only Box 2.

[count2infinity]

Assuming its about maximizing gains, I'd absolutely take only Box 2.

well, i would think that those that want to maximize gains or prove the creature does not know what is coming would pick only box two. When it is opened if there is just a spider, the first has failed at the game and the second has won. If the Mona Lisa is actually in it, then the first has won and the second has failed as to their intentions for picking.

[Kraftster]

Assuming its about maximizing gains, I'd absolutely take only Box 2.

well, i would think that those that want to maximize gains or prove the creature does not know what is coming would pick only box two. When it is opened if there is just a spider, the first has failed at the game and the second has won. If the Mona Lisa is actually in it, then the first has won and the second has failed as to their intentions for picking.

I like Asimov's response a lot. It sums it up for me because, like him, I'd consider myself a determinist. What you are saying basically aligns with that. I know I'd want the money and my decision would be based upon believing that the creature was right in his prediction, which would see me picking only 2.

The puzzle seems to be more challenging for people who believe they have choice and would try to decide what the creature would have guessed and do the double, triple think him like the scene in Princess Bride.

[Guinness]

There's no good answer.

[HomerPenguin]

Does that mean God will have poisoned both glasses because he's spent years building up an immunity to the poison God and therefore indestructible?

[Guinness]

Does that mean God will have poisoned both glasses because he's spent years building up an immunity to the poison God and therefore indestructible?

Yes, but for neither reason; but because, we're all dead, in the end.

[Guinness]

I like Asimov's response a lot. It sums it up for me because, like him, I'd consider myself a determinist. What you are saying basically aligns with that. I know I'd want the money and my decision would be based upon believing that the creature was right in his prediction, which would see me picking only 2.

The puzzle seems to be more challenging for people who believe they have choice and would try to decide what the creature would have guessed and do the double, triple think him like the scene in Princess Bride.

Dammit. I didn't see this before I posted my pic of Vizzini...

[Kraftster]

My new book has inspired me to try to revive this thread with a new topic for all the lgp philosophers out there.

Epistemology - the study of knowledge. What is knowledge? What does it mean to know something? Is there objective/transcendental truth? Do we, as humans, have access to it?

I’ve been stuck lately in this ultra-skepticism when it comes to knowledge, and I’m getting kind of sick of it. If you imagine knowledge on a continuum of 1-10 -- 1 being Certainty/Objectively True, 10 being Certainty/Objectively False, and 5 being total agnosticism -- I can never know whether something is true or false because, as a human, my knowledge and/or capacity for knowledge is fallible, I’ve been stuck at a 5, which is basically epistemological nihilism.

Basically if we are debating the issue of whether the sky is blue, I’ve been drawn to, at the end of it all, saying simply that it might be blue and it might not be blue…

Functionally/practically, perhaps the limitations on our knowledge don’t really matter and that’s the best that I’ll be able to resort to in escaping the case of the “fives” that I’ve been having.

Any thoughts? Lets turn this up to 11.

[doublem]

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

[Kraftster]

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

I knew this would draw the lgp nihilist out.