Free Will Philosophy Problem - Page 15

PairTheBoard · #**141** 05-17-2005, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Excellent! Now replace the word "rational" with "predictable".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the original problem assumes the choice is predictable rather than rational. It makes no assumption that you are rational nor that you will make the rational choice. Also, your post doesn't really answer the question as to what actually Is the Rational Choice.

If you replace the word rational with "predictable" then your chart explains the solution perfectly imo, if by "predictable" we mean 100% predictable. It frees you to make the predictable choice of box 2 without worry about whether it's the rational choice.

If it's only 99.9% predicatble then you could break apart your chart into probability sections to show the same thing probablistically.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard · #**142** 05-17-2005, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm finding it difficult to refute that argument head on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because this problem is, as mentioned in an early post, a paradox. It is by definition impossible to refute either side of a paradox.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes a puzzle is advertised as a paradox and it turns out it really isn't. Does a proof exist that shows this really is a logical paradox? I've not heard of one.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard · #**143** 05-17-2005, 10:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This problem really touches on none of that. No more so than questioning your existence.

This problem revolves around someone's ability to predict your actions. period.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I see it as well J_V. I think most people intuit that they make decisions of their own free will, so to speak, but they would also agree that there are a lot of things people do which can be predicted to some degree of accuracy.

For example, starve a policman for a few days then put him in a room full of coffee and donuts. Maybe he will decide to starve some more but I'd bet on some definite donut consumption taking place.

PairTheBoard

bearly · #**144** 05-17-2005, 10:21 PM

true........i was assuming (incorrectly, it seems) that folks who keep on addressing a 'free will phil prob' might like to learn something. it is a subject that most of us will address as we grow older----at least i would think so. h

bearly · #**145** 05-17-2005, 10:25 PM

some people---we have all known a few----'intuit' that they are very 'hip'. none of their friends thinks so, however. h

PairTheBoard · #**146** 05-17-2005, 10:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
some people---we have all known a few----'intuit' that they are very 'hip'. none of their friends thinks so, however. h

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you took your nasty pills today.

PairTheBoard

bearly · #**147** 05-17-2005, 11:15 PM

not at all (altho i was afraid someone might think that), i was just looking for an example of the fallibility of 'intuition' as it would occur in the vernacular. your points are really right on the mark. i'm chopping on a somewhat different log. bearly..........h

Aces McGee · #**148** 05-17-2005, 11:17 PM

If you do some Google-ing (or search-engine-of-your-choice-ing) for Newcomb's Paradox, you'll find quite a bit of discourse about it. I guess you can judge for yourself if it's a true paradox or not.

-McGee

PairTheBoard · #**149** 05-18-2005, 12:45 AM

Thanks. sorry for the misread. Something I do in poker not infrequently as well.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard · #**150** 05-18-2005, 01:30 AM

I see what you mean. I've been reluctant to "look at the answer" by googling it. But it looks like the best thinkers will be debating this for some time to come. I produces very strong arguments on each side.

However, here's one who opines that it's not a true paradox because one argument in much stronger than the other. It just happens to essentially be the argument I've been making when talking about a probablistic causation produced by choosing box 2.

http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/newcomb.html

On the other hand, I saw an argument that strengthens the two boxers. Suppose the boxes have glass backs and while you are making your choice your wife can see inside them. She cannot communicate with you but, you KNOW what she will be wanting you to do.

It's interesting that when presented to Scientific American Readers they went 7-3 in favor of the Box 2 choice.

It looks like as far as 2+2ers go it's a genuine paradox.

PairTheBoard