A Question For David S.

I'll refute your refutation of my refutation by completely agreeing. There is a chance that you can make yourself believe pretty much anything if you really wanted to. However, you can't just "choose" to believe it, in the sense that most people think of when discussing Pascal's wager.

I'd guess I could make myself belive that I am a pink monkey trapped inside of a human body. Given enough time, money, energy, shock-therapy, and torture... I'm sure I could break myself mentally into believing that.

BUT... (and here's where my refutation will come out on top, and forces you all-in)... I cannot just CHOOSE to make that choice. If I were to make the choice to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed, there would have to be enough influences that persuaded me to do that. So, in other words, even I could choose to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed in response to a "Pascal Wager"... I can't just choose to make that choice.

And the river card is...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll refute your refutation of my refutation by completely agreeing. There is a chance that you can make yourself believe pretty much anything if you really wanted to. However, you can't just "choose" to believe it, in the sense that most people think of when discussing Pascal's wager.

I'd guess I could make myself belive that I am a pink monkey trapped inside of a human body. Given enough time, money, energy, shock-therapy, and torture... I'm sure I could break myself mentally into believing that.

BUT... (and here's where my refutation will come out on top, and forces you all-in)... I cannot just CHOOSE to make that choice. If I were to make the choice to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed, there would have to be enough influences that persuaded me to do that. So, in other words, even I could choose to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed in response to a "Pascal Wager"... I can't just choose to make that choice.

And the river card is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed that you can't just choose to believe, but the wager is that it is +ev to become a practising christian.

Its not quite forcing yourself to believe because you want to. Its deliberately exposing yourself to a situation where you increase your chances of believing (like studying physics in my earlier post).

Denying free will works, I look forward to seeing that in some poker posts? Is raising or calling more +ev, neither cos you have no choice which to do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

The river was a rag... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed that you can't just choose to believe, but the wager is that it is +ev to become a practising christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wager was to believe. You said that even though you can't choose to believe, you can choose to start practicing to increase your chances of believing. My response was that I can't just "choose" to want to do that, though. Unless I have a compelling reason, then I won't do it. So, unless that wager is compelling to me, then I won't start practicing such that I might start believing.

It would be far easier for me to get on a diet & exercise routine... to lose weight. I am practically guaranteed of the results. But, for some reason, even when I start, I'm not compelled to keep it up. I think I need some shock therapy & torture to make me want to get in shape! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Denying free will works, I look forward to seeing that in some poker posts? Is raising or calling more +ev, neither cos you have no choice which to do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My choices must be compelled by my strongest desire. Most poker players are playing for money... and it's tangible, right on the table. That's usually compelling enough to motivate people to make the most +EV play. Now, if the winner of the tournament weren't going to get the money until he died, then, well... I wouldn't be playing in the tournament.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The wager was to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even pascal realised that you can't choose what to believe. Anyway it doesn't really matter, the refutation we are talking about only applies to the proposition that practising christianiny is +ev.

As to the rest, I apologise that my post took us down the line of whether we should choose to take the bet. All that matters is whether its +ev or not, obviously many people turn doen +ev bets all the time.

My last paragraph should have said:

I'm not saying this a is knock-down logical refutation of the refutation but it does show that the refutation is very weak. If there were no other refutations then having a serious try at practising christianianity is +ev unless there is no chance of being persuaded (no-one can justifiable argue there is no chance) or there's a greater likelyhood of being persuaded by never practicing (which is implausible).

I think you agreed with that. Stick or twist [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez