Thread: So I Was Just Thinking About This Paradox...

Nah, you're right. You can intend to drink the toxin at the time of the challenge, but then there are an infinite number of factors (including having enough time to consider it a little longer) that could simply change your mind, when it's time to drink the toxin.
Just because you don't drink it doesn't mean you didn't intend to drink it at the time you collected the reward. However I think it's impossible for the person giving the reward to know whether or not the subject really intends to drink the toxin, or is just saying so to get the reward, so such a challenge, I think, would be kinda pointless. Heh.

Yep you're right. The only way to win this game is to resolve to drink the toxin no matter what.

This is a pretty weak paradox. I mean, I'm sure it is, but it doesn't seem such a mindblower as some I've seen.

No...

That Thought Puzzle is too fabricated... it amounts to offering people money for merely pretending to have an intent. Once they know that nothing is actually required of them to receive their reward, then it lifts the situation out of the realms of Morality and Personal Ethics, and turns it into one of Social Convention... another way Society has to distribute Wealth.

For instance, the way people take pens and paperclips home from work, or make personal calls on Company Time, on company telephones, or answer personal emails at work... all without the slightest moral or ethical apprehension.

You see, people do not have to feel like Thieves when they can feel Entitled.

If they perceive The Offer as part of their Social Network, then they can see that The Offer is just another source of the Income that they deserve for being a loyal member of the Social Community.

So it is that people do not "steal" pencils and paperclips at work. Such stuff is considered to be part of their "home away from home". People are NOT alienated from their workplace, but can't help to get the feeling of proprietary possession over the little objects around them... especially the consumables. Is it not something of a clique that nobody in the history of the World has ever bought their own stapler, but simply takes one home from 'Work'.

Because, as their experience feels to them, it is theirs already as having been part of their working territory. They feel entitled to it.

And so it is when he have a bureaucratic offer of Compensation if some certain few formalities are touched up -- "You must intend to take a bitter draft, but you don't really have to do it... now sign here". Nobody would ever give it a second thought. And they would come to expect it, with all of the certainty that people now count upon their Christmas Bonuses... money for nothing.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

This is a pretty weak paradox. I mean, I'm sure it is, but it doesn't seem such a mindblower as some I've seen. [/b]

Yeah, my favorite ones are usually time-travel related. gotta love those.

Originally Posted by Leo

No...

That Thought Puzzle is too fabricated... it amounts to offering people money for merely pretending to have an intent. Once they know that nothing is actually required of them to receive their reward, then it lifts the situation out of the realms of Morality and Personal Ethics, and turns it into one of Social Convention... another way Society has to distribute Wealth.

For instance, the way people take pens and paperclips home from work, or make personal calls on Company Time, on company telephones, or answer personal emails at work... all without the slightest moral or ethical apprehension.

You see, people do not have to feel like Thieves when they can feel Entitled.

If they perceive The Offer as part of their Social Network, then they can see that The Offer is just another source of the Income that they deserve for being a loyal member of the Social Community.

So it is that people do not "steal" pencils and paperclips at work. Such stuff is considered to be part of their "home away from home". People are NOT alienated from their workplace, but can't help to get the feeling of proprietary possession over the little objects around them... especially the consumables. Is it not something of a clique that nobody in the history of the World has ever bought their own stapler, but simply takes one home from 'Work'.

Because, as their experience feels to them, it is theirs already as having been part of their working territory. They feel entitled to it.

And so it is when he have a bureaucratic offer of Compensation if some certain few formalities are touched up -- "You must intend to take a bitter draft, but you don't really have to do it... now sign here". Nobody would ever give it a second thought. And they would come to expect it, with all of the certainty that people now count upon their Christmas Bonuses... money for nothing. [/b]

Yes, if you were able to cheat by not actually intending it, the puzzle would be easy. The puzzle says that you have to intend to do it however. So, whoever is offering the deal is somehow able to detect whether you intend to or not. If lying is not an option, as far as I can see, the only option I can see is to intend to drink it even if you get the money.

Edit: sorry for double post, I thought the new software would merge them.

Originally Posted by ledzeppelin

Yes, if you were able to cheat by not actually intending it, the puzzle would be easy. The puzzle says that you have to intend to do it however. So, whoever is offering the deal is somehow able to detect whether you intend to or not. If lying is not an option, as far as I can see, the only option I can see is to intend to drink it even if you get the money.

Edit: sorry for double post, I thought the new software would merge them.
[/b]

My point was that the Paradox was stupid and fabricated.

And your point is to jump in with spit and duck tape and chewing gum to patch up what is not so much a Paradox as it is nonsense.

Look at it as given. People are told they need to intend something they don't have to do. "Fine" where do I sign for my money. It is THAT simple. There is no LYING. The people are told up front that they will not be expected to drink the poison. They are only required to SAY they will. So they say it. That is the deal, after all.

A Psychologist friend of mine had me review a manuscript he had written which provided a new conceptual model for Human Motivation. He presented First Order, Second Order, and Third Order levels of Personality and Motivation. The First Level was a persons actual being -- his actualized identity along with his skills sets and inventories of knowledge and experience. Second Order is what a person is striving to be and actively working at becoming. Third Order is what a Person wishes he would want, but is doing nothing about (the way a child would wish to be a Fireman while not being worried about purchasing boots, hoses or ladders). In this scheme of thinking or conceptualing, then it is simple Third Order Behavior to say you would drink a poison to get money while thinking in terms of First Order that one is not expected to carry out the intention.

Originally Posted by ledzeppelin

Yes, if you were able to cheat by not actually intending it, the puzzle would be easy. The puzzle says that you have to intend to do it however. So, whoever is offering the deal is somehow able to detect whether you intend to or not. If lying is not an option, as far as I can see, the only option I can see is to intend to drink it even if you get the money.

Edit: sorry for double post, I thought the new software would merge them.
[/b]

My point was that the Paradox was stupid and fabricated.

And your point is to jump in with spit and duck tape and chewing gum to patch up what is not so much a Paradox as it is nonsense.

Look at it as given. People are told they need to intend something they don't have to do. "Fine" where do I sign for my money. It is THAT simple. There is no LYING. The people are told up front that they will not be expected to drink the poison. They are only required to SAY they will. So they say it. That is the deal, after all.

A Psychologist friend of mine had me review a manuscript he had written which provided a new conceptual model for Human Motivation. He presented First Order, Second Order, and Third Order levels of Personality and Motivation. The First Level was a persons actual being -- his actualized identity along with his skills sets and inventories of knowledge and experience. Second Order is what a person is striving to be and actively working at becoming. Third Order is what a Person wishes he would want, but is doing nothing about (the way a child would wish to be a Fireman while not being worried about purchasing boots, hoses or ladders). In this scheme of thinking or conceptualing, then it is simple Third Order Behavior to say you would drink a poison to get money while thinking in terms of First Order that one is not expected to carry out the intention.

Of course, if one is not greedy, they could intend to not drink the toxin, and then walk away without the money.

Originally Posted by Leo

Look at it as given. People are told they need to intend something they don't have to do. "Fine" where do I sign for my money. It is THAT simple. There is no LYING. The people are told up front that they will not be expected to drink the poison. They are only required to SAY they will. So they say it. That is the deal, after all. [/b]

Well if you look at that way sure. It might be what happens to a real person in the real world presented this choice. But this hypothetical person isn't just SAYING they are going to drink it. The intention has to be "truly and successfully formed."

It's like this.
When I am the subject:
I have the choice whether to drink the toxin or not in the future (say tomorrow).
If I choose to drink it, I get a million bucks.
If I choose not to, then I get squat.
Whether I drink it or not, in the future, doesn't affect the money.
So, if I choose to drink it in the future, I get the money even if I don't drink it.
The paradox is this:
I choose to drink the toxin today.
A dude gives me the million bucks.
Knowing I get to keep the money even though I don't drink the toxin, I change my mind.
I will now not drink the toxin.

You could say that I never intended to drink the toxin.
I only intended to intend to drink it, so I would get my moolah.
But since I truly didn't intend to drink it, I don't get the money.

It's like when you tell someone that there's no such thing as a selfless good deed.
Then they go about doing things to prove that there is.
They can never prove themselves right, because they are doing the good deed to prove they are right, in which case it then becomes unselfless.