Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 9:15 am
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 trust his drugged behavior, which against his will leads him back to the room, but it will definitely drag him to the green room, because he is in the green room by the condition. So what prevents him from not pumping himself with drugs, but hypnotizing himself, or firmly deciding to return no matter what?
? 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.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 9:15 am
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 trust his drugged behavior, which against his will leads him back to the room, but it will definitely drag him to the green room, because he is in the green room by the condition. So what prevents him from not pumping himself with drugs, but hypnotizing himself, or firmly deciding to return no matter what?
? 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 strong persuasion? Why can't he decide to act irrationally by leaving the room (i.e., returning to the room). And if he doesn't have drugs and he's in the green room, won't he find a way to take the prize, even if he's not risky?
Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 10:52 pm
Yes, he also cannot trust his drugged behavior, which against his will leads him back to the room, but it will definitely drag him to the green room, because he is in the green room by the condition. So what prevents him from not pumping himself with drugs, but hypnotizing himself, or firmly deciding to return no matter what?
? 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 strong persuasion? Why can't he decide to act irrationally by leaving the room (i.e., returning to the room). And if he doesn't have drugs and he's in the green room, won't he find a way to take the prize, even if he's not risky?
? 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 myself to go back, are implanted.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 5:17 am
? 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 strong persuasion? Why can't he decide to act irrationally by leaving the room (i.e., returning to the room). And if he doesn't have drugs and he's in the green room, won't he find a way to take the prize, even if he's not risky?
? 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 myself to go back, are implanted.
Why? With a strong conviction he can't think like that) There is no clear line here. He, reasoning rationally, comes to the conclusion that he does not need to be rational in the future. paradox)
Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 5:54 am
Where is the line between hypnosis and strong persuasion? Why can't he decide to act irrationally by leaving the room (i.e., returning to the room). And if he doesn't have drugs and he's in the green room, won't he find a way to take the prize, even if he's not risky?
? 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 myself to go back, are implanted.
Why? With a strong conviction he can't think like that) There is no clear line here. He, reasoning rationally, comes to the conclusion that he does not need to be rational in the future. paradox)
Strong conviction is obviously irrelevant when one's memories can be altered by an external force.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 6:20 am
? 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 myself to go back, are implanted.
Why? With a strong conviction he can't think like that) There is no clear line here. He, reasoning rationally, comes to the conclusion that he does not need to be rational in the future. paradox)
Strong conviction is obviously irrelevant when one's memories can be altered by an external force.
Why? With a strong conviction he can't think like that) There is no clear line here. He, reasoning rationally, comes to the conclusion that he does not need to be rational in the future. paradox)
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.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:41 am
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. And what prevents you from convincing yourself to return? You are a slave to your rationality, because it is rational in this case to act irrationally in the future. So you can only make yourself dumber by banging your head against the wall to win, and there is no other way? Don't you find this strange?
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 it is rational in this case to act irrationally in the future. So you can only make yourself dumber by banging your head against the wall to win, and there is no other way? Don't you find this strange?
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:14 pm
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 it is rational in this case to act irrationally in the future. So you can only make yourself dumber by banging your head against the wall to win, and there is no other way? Don't you find this strange?
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
Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:04 pm
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 it is rational in this case to act irrationally in the future. So you can only make yourself dumber by banging your head against the wall to win, and there is no other way? Don't you find this strange?
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 and irrationality usually brings failure, but sometimes it's the other way around.
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 and irrationality usually brings failure, but sometimes it's the other way around.
In any case, it is better to be guided by rationality than irrationality, don't you agree? And here it is the other way around
I think it should be pair of ox Houdini trick. How do you escape having an actual thought? Just talk and don't do it. I think it should be tried in a locked padded cell, where orderlies tend to lose the key.
And if you want to pump yourself up, I think the French invented those and you might find them in a sex toy shop.
Binary recursion always produces a binary result. It is not a paradox when you demand data you do not have. Then you demand that which ever choice you make, the answer is the other. That is not a paradox, it is stupidity.
It works out that you are twiddling your thumbs like an old and senile lady.
What appears to be a paradox, is a matter of intelligence because, every system of grammar is only a method of using binary recursion. It is really silly to claim that you talked yourself into perplexity.
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?