Philosophy Now Forum

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 5:11 amA solution I am satisfied with has been found.

And the solution is...?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:18 am This challenge is now closed. I have a solution I am satisfied with. While the solution was developed by me, it was partially inspired by someone's suggestion and they received 5% of the money as an inspiration fee.

What a scam. i wonder who was duped out of 9.5K of their 'prize'

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 1:41 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 5:11 amA solution I am satisfied with has been found.

And the solution is...?

I mean it's a bit complicated, but the nutshell version is that you what what risk of a 'nightmare scenario' (that stands in as a proxy for the totality of someone's freedom) people would accept in order to avoid a variety of different violations of their freedom. You bound the total at 100%, such that if you are considering, say, twenty violations of freedom, you have a minimum and a maximum of 100% total risk to assign between them. What you end up with is a rough picture of how different choices are valued both in comparison to each other and in comparison to the whole. And, if you assume the principle that each person's total freedom is worth the same as each other person's, and that people should be able to decide how much their various freedoms are worth within that total, then you can use that as a rough guide to what percentage of that value is lost when a certain freedom is violated. Obviously there are some practical issues with the surveying, but it's good enough for some broad strokes policy decisions at least, which is a huge step forward.

Someone sent me a system that was quite different, but which compared various violations to the person's death. While that didn't work, our conversation had me thinking a lot about what comparing to 'the whole' would look like, which is what ultimately led to the nightmare scenario method.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:57 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:18 am This challenge is now closed. I have a solution I am satisfied with. While the solution was developed by me, it was partially inspired by someone's suggestion and they received 5% of the money as an inspiration fee.

What a scam. i wonder who was duped out of 9.5K of their 'prize'

As mentioned in the initial terms, partial solutions receive partial payouts, and in this case I think 5% was reasonable. Obviously I discussed this with the person in question and they seemed pleased with what they received for their contribution. It was a member of a different forum where I had also posted this problem.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:24 pm

I'm havin' a hard time wrappin' my head around this nightmare scenario thing. Can you give me a practical or concrete example or a real world scenario?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 2:35 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:24 pm

I'm havin' a hard time wrappin' my head around this nightmare scenario thing. Can you give me a practical or concrete example or a real world scenario?

So I'm still working out the best way to communicate it in a way people can understand, but something like this:

You spend the rest of your life (as long as you would live otherwise) in a coma, but you are still aware of everything that happens to you. You come under the care of an unscrupulous doctor who sees you as a money-making opportunity. He confiscates everything you own and then rents you out for experiments of various drugs that change your thought patterns, people who want to come and beat up a coma patient, and organ sales. You continue to live like this for as long as you would otherwise live, unable to move, communicate, or act in any way, while what happens to your body, property, and even your mind is left to the capricious will of others.

I'm thinking something along those lines.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:13 am You spend the rest of your life (as long as you would live otherwise) in a coma, but you are still aware of everything that happens to you. You come under the care of an unscrupulous doctor who sees you as a money-making opportunity. He confiscates everything you own and then rents you out for experiments of various drugs that change your thought patterns, people who want to come and beat up a coma patient, and organ sales. You continue to live like this for as long as you would otherwise live, unable to move, communicate, or act in any way, while what happens to your body, property, and even your mind is left to the capricious will of others.

You say My goal in constructing my normative theory is to determine how free, rational agents ought to be or act,
where “ought” is understood in an objective and universal sense, assuming that this question has an
answer so the question in your scenario above is: is the doctor acting immorally, yes?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:24 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 1:41 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 5:11 amA solution I am satisfied with has been found.

And the solution is...?

I mean it's a bit complicated, but the nutshell version is that you what what risk of a 'nightmare scenario' (that stands in as a proxy for the totality of someone's freedom) people would accept in order to avoid a variety of different violations of their freedom. You bound the total at 100%, such that if you are considering, say, twenty violations of freedom, you have a minimum and a maximum of 100% total risk to assign between them. What you end up with is a rough picture of how different choices are valued both in comparison to each other and in comparison to the whole. And, if you assume the principle that each person's total freedom is worth the same as each other person's, and that people should be able to decide how much their various freedoms are worth within that total, then you can use that as a rough guide to what percentage of that value is lost when a certain freedom is violated. Obviously there are some practical issues with the surveying, but it's good enough for some broad strokes policy decisions at least, which is a huge step forward.

Will you provide some examples of where and how it is 'good enough' for some alleged 'broad strokes policy decisions'?

if no, then WHY NOT?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:24 pm Someone sent me a system that was quite different, but which compared various violations to the person's death. While that didn't work, our conversation had me thinking a lot about what comparing to 'the whole' would look like, which is what ultimately led to the nightmare scenario method.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:27 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:57 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:18 am This challenge is now closed. I have a solution I am satisfied with. While the solution was developed by me, it was partially inspired by someone's suggestion and they received 5% of the money as an inspiration fee.

What a scam. i wonder who was duped out of 9.5K of their 'prize'

As mentioned in the initial terms, partial solutions receive partial payouts, and in this case I think 5% was reasonable. Obviously I discussed this with the person in question and they seemed pleased with what they received for their contribution. It was a member of a different forum where I had also posted this problem.

But, obviously, they, ACTUALLY, could be NOT pleased AT ALL, correct?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:13 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 2:35 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:24 pm

I'm havin' a hard time wrappin' my head around this nightmare scenario thing. Can you give me a practical or concrete example or a real world scenario?

So I'm still working out the best way to communicate it in a way people can understand, but something like this:

You spend the rest of your life (as long as you would live otherwise) in a coma, but you are still aware of everything that happens to you.

If I am AWARE OF EVERYTHING that happens to me, then I am, OBVIOUSLY, NOT IN a coma.

Would you like to PICK and REPHRASE 'your words' MORE CAREFULLY, here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

you were ASKED FOR 'real world scenarios'.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:13 am You come under the care of an unscrupulous doctor who sees you as a money-making opportunity. He confiscates everything you own and then rents you out for experiments of various drugs that change your thought patterns, people who want to come and beat up a coma patient, and organ sales.

AGAIN, 'real world scenarios' were ASKED FOR.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:13 am You continue to live like this for as long as you would otherwise live,

Is this for as long as I would have otherwise lived;
FROM being BEATEN UP and FROM HAVING MY ORGANS REMOVED,
OR FROM if I was NOT under the so-called 'care' of an "unscrupulous doctor"?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:13 am unable to move, communicate, or act in any way, while what happens to your body, property, and even your mind is left to the capricious will of others.

And, did you REALLY NEED TO SEARCH the internet FOR A so-called RESOLUTION, FROM others, here?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:13 am I'm thinking something along those lines.

you REALLY ARE NOT EXPLAINING MUCH AT ALL, here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:05 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:13 am You spend the rest of your life (as long as you would live otherwise) in a coma, but you are still aware of everything that happens to you. You come under the care of an unscrupulous doctor who sees you as a money-making opportunity. He confiscates everything you own and then rents you out for experiments of various drugs that change your thought patterns, people who want to come and beat up a coma patient, and organ sales. You continue to live like this for as long as you would otherwise live, unable to move, communicate, or act in any way, while what happens to your body, property, and even your mind is left to the capricious will of others.

You say My goal in constructing my normative theory is to determine how free, rational agents ought to be or act,
where “ought” is understood in an objective and universal sense, assuming that this question has an
answer so the question in your scenario above is: is the doctor acting immorally, yes?

Yeah the doctor certainly would be, but that's not really the point. The scenario in question is meant to be a proxy for all of someone's freedom being violated such that you can weigh various different freedoms by reference to what risk of this scenario occurring one would accept in order to avoid those freedoms being violated. Eg, what risk of this nightmare scenario would you assign as acceptable to avoid dying, what about losing your ability to see, etc etc. Make sense?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 3:53 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:27 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:57 pm

What a scam. i wonder who was duped out of 9.5K of their 'prize'

As mentioned in the initial terms, partial solutions receive partial payouts, and in this case I think 5% was reasonable. Obviously I discussed this with the person in question and they seemed pleased with what they received for their contribution. It was a member of a different forum where I had also posted this problem.

But, obviously, they, ACTUALLY, could be NOT pleased AT ALL, correct?

I'm not really sure what you are asking here.

Age:

"coma" seems most appropriate. I initially thought of your body being destroyed and only your mind trapped in such a state, but I think a "coma" is easier for people to understand.

You live as long as you would have lived had none of the nightmare scenario occurred. The point being that you are unable to die as an escape from the nightmare scenario, but you aren't immortal and bringing in issues of infinity.

Also, why are half your words capitalized?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:42 pm Make sense?

In other words: how much, or what parts, of your freedom are you willing to risk to get a benefit, yeah?

Later today: I'm gonna review the thread. I think I'm missin' sumthin' and need to refresh my head.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:49 pm Age:

"coma" seems most appropriate. I initially thought of your body being destroyed and only your mind trapped in such a state, but I think a "coma" is easier for people to understand.

But there is NO, ACTUAL, 'your body', NOR 'your mind'.

And, HOW OFTEN are people in 'comas' and are AWARE of what is going on around them?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:49 pm You live as long as you would have lived had none of the nightmare scenario occurred.

BUT, if one is getting BEATEN, and/or have organs REMOVED, then HOW, EXACTLY, could they be 'living' 'now' for AS LONG AS if these things were NOT happening and occurring?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:49 pm The point being that you are unable to die as an escape from the nightmare scenario,

So, WHY NOT JUST SAY and WRITE 'this' INSTEAD?

Also, WHY NOT just SAY and WRITE that 'the body', itself, is paralyzed to the point that it can NOT just express the thoughts and feelings within 'the body', although 'the person' within is AWARE of what is going on. The word 'coma' implies that 'the person', within a body, is NOT AWARE of what is going on IN 'the body' nor OUTSIDE of 'the body'.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:49 pm but you aren't immortal and bringing in issues of infinity.

What, supposed and alleged, 'issues' are there 'of infinity', which you are seeing and claiming, here, EXACTLY.

I do NOT see ANY 'issue' AT ALL regarding 'infinity', itself.

Also, is there ANY one, here, who just thinks, let alone BELIEFS, that 'you' are immortal, anyway?

If yes, then who are 'they', EXACTLY?

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 12:49 pm Also, why are half your words capitalized?

Are you SURE that 'the number' is 'half', exactly?

Anyway I capitalize some words to just emphasize SOME words more than other words.

I do this so that if and when I get ACCUSED of NOT saying some things earlier, or for not EXPRESSING what I was ACTUALLY MEANING, I can then POINT BACK to WHERE, and WHEN, I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE, EXACTLY, what I DID. Then, what WILL BE CLEARLY SEEN is that I even ACTUALLY capitalized SOME words to SHOW that I WAS ACTUALLY SAYING what I MEANING ALL ALONG.

That is WHY SOME, and I would find it VERY AMAZING if HALF, of 'my words' are capitalized.