Rational Choice

[SteveF]

Well Paidion, my assessment is exactly the same...

If that is the case, then I should have recognized you. But I was thrown by your statement:

Since the computer has already made it's prediction, which I'm now privy to, I know what's in each box.

You seem to be saying that, prior to making your choice, you have knowledge of the computer's prediction and what is in each box. Perhaps that is not what you meant.

Yes, I deduced I can know what's inside because the computer is correct 100% of the time and people would've logically been picking both boxes before receiving the follow up information (Including myself). Of course, this only applies if the computer isn't wrong the 501st time, which is possible. I ultimately concurred with Michelle but threw that in as a side thought.

I could be wrong. I'm merely stating how I see it.

[selah]

Well Paidion, my assessment is exactly the same...

If that is the case, then I should have recognized you. But I was thrown by your statement:

Since the computer has already made it's prediction, which I'm now privy to, I know what's in each box.

You seem to be saying that, prior to making your choice, you have knowledge of the computer's prediction and what is in each box. Perhaps that is not what you meant.

Well brothers, would you help me out here because that is what I meant. Can you explain how the computer prediction is not rational? It seems to be because if it is correct 500 analyses out of reading 500 brainwave sets, then it might be right when it predicts my choice. (Even tossing a coin never gets that good; you would never get 500 "heads" or "tails" consecutively, or randomly). So if it "knows" that I would want to open both boxes, the result would be that $100 is put in box A and $100 in box B.

Okay, what is wrong with my rationale? Thank you for telling me in kindness. Michelle, according to Paidion, you have aced the "test." Maybe you can set me strait.

[SteveF]

Well brothers, would you help me out here because that is what I meant. Can you explain how the computer prediction is not rational? It seems to be because if it is correct 500 analyses out of reading 500 brainwave sets, then it might be right when it predicts my choice. (Even tossing a coin never gets that good; you would never get 500 "heads" or "tails" consecutively, or randomly). So if it "knows" that I would want to open both boxes, the result would be that $100 is put in box A and $100 in box B.

I agree. I think you put it in better words than me. Utlimately, even if the computer is wrong you get all the money anyway.

I think if you only choose "A only" you're using the rational of "why take a chance"? I think that's a legitimate rational . It's like Paidion said, there are different ways of being rational....or at least I think that's what he was trying to say

[selah]

SteveF wrote:

It's like Paidion said, there are different ways of being rational....or at least I think that's what he was trying to say

thanks, I didn't know that he said that..........or did he?

[SteveF]

SteveF wrote:

It's like Paidion said, there are different ways of being rational....or at least I think that's what he was trying to say

thanks, I didn't know that he said that..........or did he?

It's likely that I've taken him out of context and superimposed my own thoughts into it. Ooops I was basing it on this statement:

I heard about this in 1966 or 1967 during a philosophy class at the University of Manitoba.
This question had been given to hundreds of students. As it turned out, those students were pretty well split right down the middle. But whichever choice a person made, it was found that that person seemed totally adamant that he or she had made the rational choice, and that anyone who made the other choice made an irrational choice.

I was curious as to how you feel about the choice you made. Do you feel 100% convinced that your choice was rational, and that the other choice is irrational? I am thinking that there must be some sort of human psychology which divides people so nearly equally into two groups.

I guess I see both as being rational in a different way. I'm looking at it more mathematically etc..and people who choose "A only" seem to look at it from a more practical standpoint. They seem to think something like, "forget about calculations, just take the guaranteed 10,000. What if you end up being wrong in your assessment? etc...". I see both being rational in their decission. But then again, I may be irrational about this

What I will ultimately do is cast my own vote, explain why I voted that way, and then describe in brief how a Class A person thinks and how a Class B person thinks, and then show how their way of thinking relates to a particular theological problem, and why that particular problem cannot be resolved.

I'm curious to hear Paidion's thoughts on the above.

[Paidion]

Okay, I will first describe how a class B person thinks (the class to which I belong, the class which opens both boxes) and then how a class A person thinks.

CLASS B thinking
The money is already there. That will no change, and so I might as well open both boxes. There is no point in choosing A only, since there might be $100 in B that I can have as well. Choosing only A cannot cause there to be $10,000 in Box A, since backward causation is impossible. So really, the computer's prediction is irrelevant. I can maximize the money I'll get by choosing both boxes.

CLASS A thinking
Since the computer has been right for 500 times, it will probably be right in my case. True, backward causation is not possible, but that's not what's going on here. If I choose Box A only, the computer will have predicted that I would choose A only, and therefore the operator will have placed $10,000 in Box A. So the rational choice is to choose A only. For if I choose both, then the computer will have predicted that i would choose both, and thus, I would find only $200 in both boxes.

So how do you think? Like a class B person or a class A person? Which type of thinking is RATIONAL, and which is IRRATIONAL thinking? Or are they both rational (or both irrational)? Most people feel certain that one of the two is rational and the other irrational. I, myself, certainly do. How about you?

[Paidion]

I'll bet you my $200 to your $10,000 that it has something to do with the truth value in the present of future predicted events.

MICHELLE, YOU WIN! Talk about insight!

CLASS B THINKING

If the sentence "I will raise my hand tomorrow" is true(or if someone KNOWS I raise my hand tomorrow), then I cannot refrain from raising my hand. For if I can keep my hand down tomorrow, then the sentence "will raise my hand tomorrow" is FALSE! Likewise, if I can keep my hand down tomorrow, then no one knows to day that I will raise it tomorrow. So the sentence cannot be true, and no one can know it. Similarly, the sentence cannot be false. For if it were either true or false, that would contradict my freedom to choose tomorrow to either raise it or not.

CLASS A THINKING

The sentence "I will raise my hand tomorrow" can be true now (or it can be known now)But this does not interfere with my free will. For if I choose to raise my hand tomorrow, then the given sentence WOULD HAVE BEEN true today. Similarly, the given sentence could be now false. For if I choose not to raise my hand tomorrow, then the given sentence WOULD HAVE BEEN false today.

What kind of thinker are you? Class B or Class A?

By the way, from Suzana's reasons for God's forknowledge having nothing to do with her freedom of choice led me to believe that she was a CLASS A thinker. As it turned out, she gave evidence of this by choosing Box A only as the "Rational Choice".

[SteveF]

By the way, from Suzana's reasons for God's forknowledge having nothing to do with her freedom of choice led me to believe that she was a CLASS A thinker. As it turned out, she gave evidence of this by choosing Box A only as the "Rational Choice".

Paidion, Suzana's reason for chosing "A" was as follows:

Of course, if I knew it was all legit...I would choose box A only.
Why risk $10000 for the sake of an extra 100?

I don't see this as the same reason as you provided:

CLASS A thinking
Since the computer has been right for 500 times, it will probably be right in my case. True, backward causation is not possible, but that's not what's going on here. If I choose Box A only, the computer will have predicted that I would choose A only, and therefore the operator will have placed $10,000 in Box A. So the rational choice is to choose A only. For if I choose both, then the computer will have predicted that i would choose both, and thus, I would find only $200 in both boxes.

I think she was merely looking at the risk factor. I think that's one rational way of approaching it. Even though I'm convinced my choice of "both boxes" is correct, she could make the argument that I'm crazy (and not rational)for putting that kind of money at risk for an extra hundred.

Suzanna wrote:

I also suspect Paidion is setting us up with a trick question, but I can't work it out.

It looks like her woman's intuition thought something was up.

I guess Suzanna is sleeping right now, so maybe she can let us know what her reasoning was when she wakes up....and we're alseep.

[Michelle]

Thanks, Paidion, for saying that I'm rational AND insightful.

Open theism makes my head hurt a bit.

[Suzana]

Hello
I'm a little bit distracted at present by a mini-tornado which has hit my house, in the form of a visiting 14 month (cutest) little grandson...

so my comments may be a bit dis-jointed (words too; my spell check is querying dis-jointed, and I was so sure it is a word and I am leaving it in); (also perhaps not make much sense)!

Good call, Michelle! Lucky I was just wise enough not to take you up on your bet!

My reasons for picking just box A were because of the risk-factor. Based on that, I did think picking both boxes would be unwise, just to gain another possible $100.

When I am a bit less distracted, I will study the initial experiment again & try and see it from the other point of view; so I am reserving judgement as to whether I think the other people are completely off the wall.

Another thought I have right now: I think God is cleverer than any computer in any case. (I am sure that has some bearing on the case at some level).

When I was making my choice, I was also considering that a person's choice might depend on lots of different factors -

I might already have more money than I need, & might be more interested in foiling the computer's perfect record

it may be an experiment where the perfect result may have an undesirable outcome in the long run, and perhaps someone should sacrifice the prize money to prevent the bad guys from introducing some monster machine & take-over the world...(too much Hollywood I suspect).

Anyway I decided I was complicating things & just made my rational choice on the information as it was given!