The Adventures of a Donkey

a1call · 2016-05-26, 17:49

I'm hoping that the title will make sense at some point, but for now:

* You see your reflection in the mirror and say to him, "You are just a reflection and not real", yet you notice that your reflection is saying the same thing about you.

** Who is right?

** How can you tell?

chappy · 2016-05-26, 19:10

(Thread's Original Title: The Adventures of a Donkey)

If both statements are true then both you and the guy in the mirror are not real (whatever that means) and are merely a reflection (which seems to have some quality of realness associated with it--but that's a different puzzle.)

Then both of you would be right.

Alternatively you could both be wrong, though proving that there exists a universe inside the mirror that is equally "real" would be difficult.

But, as you said, I see my reflection in the mirror. So if I can trust the set up of the question, then at least my reflection is merely a reflection. As to my realness, I would guess that either I'm real or something is real that believes it is me and that I am real. In either case it makes not sense to layer extra layers of belief on without some evidence.

a1call · 2016-05-26, 20:38

https://youtu.be/ZuYbDP2kDfg

chappy · 2016-05-26, 20:55

Hal 9000 was a better example.

http://mersenneforum.org/attachment....1&d=1464225483

a1call · 2016-05-26, 22:42

Many, many years ago, in a Galaxy far far away, I went to a university library and picked up a book by Aristotle. As I was browsing through the book I came across a paragraph that has ended up defining my life. I was amazed at the following concept:

Quote:

A man who is violently but equally hungry and thirsty, and stands at an equal distance from food and drink ... Must remain where he is.

Which brings us to Buridan's Donkey and the title of the thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

The concept dates back to antiquity which shows how similar people are and have been.
Now a days we have technology and computers and the concept deserves an update.

Any input in this regard is appreciated.

* Suppose you have put all your fortune online and pressing either of two buttons will either double your money or you lose everything that you have.

* You have 1 hour to decide which button to press or you lose by default

** How do you decide which button to press, or do you hesitate long enough to become homeless?

a1call · 2016-05-26, 23:45

ETA: As for me, there is a good chance I would lose by default, or else press a button with extreme difficulty in (pseudo)random.

firejuggler · 2016-05-26, 23:50

I press one of the button, randomly. I can always get more money later. I have no patience for life quandary.

retina · 2016-05-27, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1call

Quote:

A man who is violently but equally hungry and thirsty, and stands at an equal distance from food and drink ... Must remain where he is.

The choice is simple. Go for the drink first. Thirst will kill you long before hunger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1call

* Suppose you have put all your fortune online and pressing either of two buttons will either double your money or you lose everything that you have.

* You have 1 hour to decide which button to press or you lose by default

** How do you decide which button to press, or do you hesitate long enough to become homeless?

If you have no rational way to predict which button is your favoured option then why agonise over it? Just press the button that requires the least amount of work to reach. And since it is online the person behind the website will probably make you lose no matter what you choose, so you already decided to lose all your money when you started the silly game.

chappy · 2016-05-27, 04:17

The problem is that the philosophical problem works great on paper, but not so great in the real world (as I tried to point out in my original post.)

People actually exist who have problems with their DL-PFC making actual human experiments like this possible (though on shaky ethical grounds).

I think Radiolab did an episode about it some years back. I'll look around the interwebs for it.

davar55 · 2016-05-27, 16:50

So let's say you're a Democrat and you're the last delegate
to vote in this year's convention and the vote is tied between
the Hill and the Bern. Your decision will decide the nomination.

The chair announces the situation and calls for your vote.
You stir in your standing location, you look at the chair,
you look around at the convention all staring at you.
Your decision is going to count, to decide for everyone.

You pause.

If you were a proton or electron, either electromagnetism
or gravity would make your decision for you. You would have
no choice, you would be subject to physical determinism.
No issue would arise. It would be out of your hands that
you don't have.

But you are a being with intelligence. With a background
of experiences and actions and choices made. With a memory.

So you make the critical step of noticing and including the context.

You left your actionable decision for this moment. In that
pause of thought, you realize the truth of the truism that,
philosophers not-withstanding, all things are NOT equal.
They never are. There's always some criteria to break the
balance between the choices. You find it, you weigh it,
you think one last time just to be sure you'er not ignoring
anything, you decide and you act.

No problem.

2016-05-26, 17:49	#1
a1call "Rashid Naimi" Oct 2015 Remote to Here/There 3×5×137 Posts	The Adventures of a Donkey I'm hoping that the title will make sense at some point, but for now: * You see your reflection in the mirror and say to him, "You are just a reflection and not real", yet you notice that your reflection is saying the same thing about you. Who is right? How can you tell?

2016-05-27, 04:17	#9
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13×89 Posts	The problem is that the philosophical problem works great on paper, but not so great in the real world (as I tried to point out in my original post.) People actually exist who have problems with their DL-PFC making actual human experiments like this possible (though on shaky ethical grounds). I think Radiolab did an episode about it some years back. I'll look around the interwebs for it. Attached Thumbnails

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Adventures with 16f siever	VBCurtis	Factoring	6	2018-01-24 11:06
The donkey problem	SORIANO	Puzzles	14	2006-12-11 07:18

2016-05-26, 19:10	#2
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13×89 Posts	(Thread's Original Title: The Adventures of a Donkey) If both statements are true then both you and the guy in the mirror are not real (whatever that means) and are merely a reflection (which seems to have some quality of realness associated with it--but that's a different puzzle.) Then both of you would be right. Alternatively you could both be wrong, though proving that there exists a universe inside the mirror that is equally "real" would be difficult. But, as you said, I see my reflection in the mirror. So if I can trust the set up of the question, then at least my reflection is merely a reflection. As to my realness, I would guess that either I'm real or something is real that believes it is me and that I am real. In either case it makes not sense to layer extra layers of belief on without some evidence.

2016-05-26, 20:38	#3
a1call "Rashid Naimi" Oct 2015 Remote to Here/There 3·5·137 Posts	https://youtu.be/ZuYbDP2kDfg

2016-05-26, 20:55	#4
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13×89 Posts	Hal 9000 was a better example. http://mersenneforum.org/attachment....1&d=1464225483

2016-05-26, 23:45	#6
a1call "Rashid Naimi" Oct 2015 Remote to Here/There 3·5·137 Posts	ETA: As for me, there is a good chance I would lose by default, or else press a button with extreme difficulty in (pseudo)random.

2016-05-26, 23:50	#7
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2³×5²×13 Posts	I press one of the button, randomly. I can always get more money later. I have no patience for life quandary.

2016-05-27, 16:50	#10
davar55 May 2004 New York City 2·29·73 Posts	So let's say you're a Democrat and you're the last delegate to vote in this year's convention and the vote is tied between the Hill and the Bern. Your decision will decide the nomination. The chair announces the situation and calls for your vote. You stir in your standing location, you look at the chair, you look around at the convention all staring at you. Your decision is going to count, to decide for everyone. You pause. If you were a proton or electron, either electromagnetism or gravity would make your decision for you. You would have no choice, you would be subject to physical determinism. No issue would arise. It would be out of your hands that you don't have. But you are a being with intelligence. With a background of experiences and actions and choices made. With a memory. So you make the critical step of noticing and including the context. You left your actionable decision for this moment. In that pause of thought, you realize the truth of the truism that, philosophers not-withstanding, all things are NOT equal. They never are. There's always some criteria to break the balance between the choices. You find it, you weigh it, you think one last time just to be sure you'er not ignoring anything, you decide and you act. No problem.