Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 5:50 pm

Here's a little problem to reinforce this. Suppose John knows that he is in universe A, and the optimal strategy for action in it is B. He also knows that the universe will not change its property of being A over time. Is it true that John should always stick to strategy B?

No I don't find it strange at all. That is, the less rational player will win, and you will lose, and this contradicts the understanding of rationality as success. To be rational, you must be irrational. Paradox I have no understanding of rationality as success. Rationality usually brings success a...

Because you can't trust your memories. You can throw out your strong conviction. But standing in the room you know that your memories are true, and if you had drugs to return, you would use them. And what prevents you from convincing yourself to return? You are a slave to your rationality, because ...

Strong conviction is obviously irrelevant when one's memories can be altered by an external force. Why? Because you can't trust your memories. You can throw out your strong conviction. But standing in the room you know that your memories are true, and if you had drugs to return, you would use them....

? If he drugs or hypnotizes himself, he won't be himself when he left the room, and won't be able to consider that his memories could be fake, which would stop him from returning. With strong persuasion, he'll be himself after he left the room, so he'll think: maybe my memories of me persuading mys...

? Drugging or hypnotizing himself (in the room) is better than firmly deciding to return (in the room), because he'll have a chance of returning before he comes to his senses and his risk aversion kicks in. I don't know what you meant by: what prevents him. Where is the line between hypnosis and st...

I give up, I really don't know what the point is. Outside the room he can't trust his memories no matter what they are, so he won't go back due to his risk aversion. He can't trust memories in which he was deliberately rational or deliberately irrational or whatever either. Yes, he also cannot trus...

I give up, I really don't know what the point is. Outside the room he can't trust his memories no matter what they are, so he won't go back due to his risk aversion. He can't trust memories in which he was deliberately rational or deliberately irrational or whatever either. Yes, he also cannot trus...

Why shouldn't he just ignore his risk and stupidly return to the room as if he was drugged? After all, with drugs it was rational, and it turns out that behaving irrationally is rational. You said that his memories about the drugging could be fake as well so he can't tell whether or not the druggin...

You said he remembers everything about the drugging, now you say those memories can be altered too. There is no contradiction here, if he came out of the green room, then so it will be So "everything" can mean fake memories. In that case he won't go back due to his risk aversion. Why shou...

And if he drugs himself and the drugs wear off before he can go back, then he will go back anyway, because he'll remember why he drugged himself, that was the rational choice. No, because he could have left the orange room. He would have been changed so that he would have left the green room, havin...

And if he drugs himself and the drugs wear off before he can go back, then he will go back anyway, because he'll remember why he drugged himself, that was the rational choice. No, because he could have left the orange room. He would have been changed so that he would have left the green room, havin...

The fourth thought follows from the third. Since he admits in the room that he is doing the right thing in the future with such unconscious behavior, why can't he throw out all his thoughts after leaving the room and just stupidly go back in, throw out his rationality? Wouldn't that be rational? Oh...

Phil8659 , you look like a bot You seek to transcend truth, when you are not even capable of comprehending or being true to begin with, That is called escapism. If you cannot deal with objective reality, you are simply lost in your own delusions and will spout any bull shit to defend it. Reality is...

Try this out. This sentence is false. Is it a paradox, or is it grammatically incorrect? This sentence is grammatically correct. But it does not have such a dual attribute as true/false, because it contains recursion This sentence is false, is written A = -A, which is gibberish. If you have proven ...