Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree that our beliefs, faith, worldview, etc. provide us with reasons. So what? This is irrelevant to the arguments above, since these psychological characteristics of you will be identical at T0 and T3.
However , in certain moral situations we are often forced to make a decision based on faith or a committment to the world the way we believe it is ultimately. Some decisions , especially the important ones , are about risk , belief and committment and sometimes what seems "reasonable" at the time is not the best course of action.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe level of difficulty of imaging the scenarios has nothing to do with the analysis - I've simply been humoring you, or more accurately, making fun of you all along by assigning these ratings. I'm not even sure what it would mean for one scenario to be more difficult to imagine than any other.
So you do accept that the plausibility and difficulty to imagine should be taken into account into the probability (alongside numerical factors)? This was my initial objection when you first started! But you poo pooed it then.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou may call it a draw if you like but now I will start a new game....
I hereby declare this contest a draw. Any scenario that takes more than 3 days to imagine would have a difficulty rating of at least "extraordinarily difficult to imagine" and more likely "pushing human imagination nearly beyond its natural limits." Thus, even if knightmeister could imagine further scenarios, their difficulty rating would offset th ...[text shortened]... g it does not increase the probability that the bomb detonates unless the fuse is connected.
My aim will be to prove that the weight of probability is that jumping off a cliff is no more risky than not jumping off a cliff.
In theory I should be able to use my imagination to the upmost and match the quantity of your scenariobs with mine . If I can keep this up then I will show that 50% of the time it is actually a good idea to jump off a cliff rather than not to.
I suspect that at some point you will want to make an evaluation of how likely some of my scenarios are ? At which point I will accuse you of changing the rules and ask you why that should be a condition of the game.
BTW May I use Donald Trump and the sword juggler?
Originally posted by bbarrNo because (to me at least) faith , belief , committment , risk is an act of will rather than an intellectual thing.
I agree that our beliefs, faith, worldview, etc. provide us with reasons. So what? This is irrelevant to the arguments above, since these psychological characteristics of you will be identical at T0 and T3.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm not even sure what it would mean for one scenario to be more difficult to imagine than any other.DR
The level of difficulty of imaging the scenarios has nothing to do with the analysis - I've simply been humoring you, or more accurately, making fun of you all along by assigning these ratings. I'm not even sure what it would mean for one scenario to be more difficult to imagine than any other.
If you try the cliff game you will understand.
BTW - I don't believe you were totally humouring me. I sense a serious intent as well. Saying "Oh , I was only joking" gives you a neat get out of jail free card whenever you need it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOf course you can. You have a massive advantage this time because I have to think of scenarios where jumping off a cliff is a good idea. However , do you accept that the likelihood of each scenario imagined has to be assessed as well (which will be to your advantage ) or shall we just play it on the number of scenarios only?
I bet I can outimagine you again.
Go.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm willing to play it straight up, going for sheer numbers.
Of course you can. You have a massive advantage this time because I have to think of scenarios where jumping off a cliff is a good idea. However , do you accept that the likelihood of each scenario imagined has to be assessed as well (which will be to your advantage ) or shall we just play it on the number of scenarios only?
Can we still assign difficulty ratings, just for fun?
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, your faith, beliefs, commitments or whatever may be brought about by an act of will (though even that is patently absurd, since you can't simply choose to believe that, say, you do not exist), but you having a particular faith, or set of beliefs, or commitments are pscyhological facts about you. Again, these facts about you will be identical at T0 and T3. So, do you plan on responding to the arguments above, or not?
No because (to me at least) faith , belief , committment , risk is an act of will rather than an intellectual thing.
Besides, it is irrelevant to the arguments presented above whether these are psychological states or not. If they are acts of will, then the question will be whether you freely choose them. If you say that you do, then the argument above will apply to the choice of these states as well.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy do you want to play? What will you be prepared to admit if I get a draw? Would you accept that it makes your "draw" meaningless if I got a draw in this situation and showed that jumping off a cliff was a good idea 50% of the time (using your reasoning)?
I'm willing to play it straight up, going for sheer numbers.
Can we still assign difficulty ratings, just for fun?
Originally posted by bbarrSo, do you plan on responding to the arguments above, or not?
No, your faith, beliefs, commitments or whatever may be brought about by an act of will (though even that is patently absurd, since you can't simply choose to believe that, say, you do not exist), but you having a particular faith, or set of beliefs, or commitments are pscyhological facts about you. Again, these facts about you will be identical at T0 and T3. So, do you plan on responding to the arguments above, or not?
Which ones , remind me , you write so prolifically.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat won't happen. I can guarantee that I'll never run out of imaginable scenarios.
Why do you want to play? What will you be prepared to admit if I get a draw?
If you want to play, I propose we take it to a new thread, and devote the rest of this thread to bbarr's argument.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat won't happen. I can guarantee that I'll never run out of imaginable scenarios. DR
That won't happen. I can guarantee that I'll never run out of imaginable scenarios.
If you want to play, I propose we take it to a new thread, and devote the rest of this thread to bbarr's argument.
So you are unable (or unwilling) to answer a hypothetical question then?
Ok , let's say you played both sides and managed to invent endless imaginable scenarios for both sides not just one. You would get a draw then. Would that prove that jumping off a cliff was just as good an idea as not jumping? Would that not show that numerical parity in any game of this kind is meaningless.
Answer the question Dr Wriggles...sorry Scribbles
Originally posted by bbarrAs long as I am able to act authentically by choosing in accord with who I am and the reasons I have at my disposal, without threat of coercion, then that is as free as I can be.BARR
Quantum indeterminacy entails that the complete state of the universe at any time does not entail the complete state of the universe at any future time. Thus, my choices have never been predestined. But, honestly, I wouldn't care even if my choices were predetermined. As long as I am able to act authentically by choosing in accord with who I am and the reas ...[text shortened]... ctions, since your choices are bizarrely independent from the reasons to which you have access.
Not at all. Your experience of making choices would be the same. The illusion of freedom would be maintained but in real terms you would not be free , only under the illusion you are free. By your reasoning I could argue that it doesn't matter whether God really exists or not just as long as he seems as if he does to my sensibilities. God is authentically as real as he can be because he seems real? I imagine many on this forum would not go for that!
How about if I authentically experience myself as Julius Caesar? Am I as much Julius as I can be?