I may ASSUME that the other person will hold on while i get the phone. I may ASSUME that the phone will fall if i rescue the person. I may ASSUME that the phone will be destroyed if it falls.
But i could not know. And if i choose the phone in the first place, i'd feel guilty for the way i put my priorities. If, however, i choose the person, resulting in our mutual chance for survival going down, the ball will be in "their" field. They just got a gift of live and pretty damn should do anything they can to make sure my decision was not in vain. Even if that means risking their own life to get us saved. It's not that i'd "send" them to their sure death out of some perverse motivation, it's more that i feel it's their responsibility to try. If the phone clearly shattered, well, we'll take our chances from there. If it's just "inaccessible", it'll be his/her job to MAKE it accessible, even if that means to chisel a stair into the island by stone-age-tools.
If you want to, i choose:
"Screw everything I just typed and still try to save both.", only i accept i may not be able to do so, but putting THEIR life at stake in the process, after saving it first. I bought them a CHANCE, if you so want, they better fight for it.
If i am to assume omniscience, i have to say i can't answer the poll. That would be a vastly different state of mind, and thinking.
If i knew somehow else, say, from a time loop, i'd still try and get things just right for all of us.
I'm just saying that in these cases the scenario is SO far out there that it's not even of theoretical value.
If you ask directly in a way of "You and another person are about to die. You have a 100% chance to survive with button 1, but person 2 dies for sure. OR you can press button 2, then you BOTH die with 70% chance or survival with 30%...then yes, i'd press button 1, partially out of mathematical logic and mostly out of self preservation."
The refined thing would be the prisoners dilemna.
If you press button 1 together, you get food for another day, but are stuck. If you press button 2 together, you are both rescued with a 60% chance or die with a 40% chance.
If 1 presses button 1 and the other button 2, then the person that pressed button 1 is rescued and the person that pressed button 2 dies. The buttons are on opposite ends of the island.
How long are you stuck there?...
Awkward situation is awkward if you both agree to press button 2, then survive with a bundle of food after pressing buttons ;)
the only problem being that he then fails at a definition of "people". It's "would an omniscient being choose human life over survival". Which invalidates it's value again, because it's theory about something we cannot comprehend.
If it's your poll, that's not meant as an insult, but as said, EITHER the setting is wrongly worded then, OR it's a setting that human beings are unable to fully understand.
I see your point. So I guess the better question would be almost all the details in the scenario, except now my ome magical force or something, you can either press button 1 to have the phone beamed to you (which would 100% kill the other person) or you could press button 2 to save the person (which would 100% 'kill' the phone and leave you both trapped on the island).
The point is what Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs said about my poll being about would you value your life more than somebody you don't know and rather have gauranteed survival for yourself instead of possibly dying with the other person.
i see that, however, it remains an inperfect information scenario.
I would probably still choose "possibly dying with the other person" as they MAY have skills or knowledge that could, somehow, help us in this place...and even if one of us in fact dies, the other may have a chance to continue surviving. If i know nothing about that person, i may take my chances. I can't navigate by stars, and even if i can reach someone by phone, AND know numbers by heart, there's no saying they will know where i am(since obviously it's a magic phone that directly links into a satellite network)...so ya, even if i saw that prototype phone, if i don't know where i am, *shrug*. I'll choose the other person to accompany me.
However: If they really turn out to be a complete moron(e.g. by trying to rape me(or actually pulling that off) and being a general idiot) i'd not be too "noble" to murder them in their sleep and regret my decision.
Here's the scenario...
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
na. the point is:
I am not omniscient.
I may ASSUME that the other person will hold on while i get the phone. I may ASSUME that the phone will fall if i rescue the person. I may ASSUME that the phone will be destroyed if it falls.
But i could not know. And if i choose the phone in the first place, i'd feel guilty for the way i put my priorities. If, however, i choose the person, resulting in our mutual chance for survival going down, the ball will be in "their" field. They just got a gift of live and pretty damn should do anything they can to make sure my decision was not in vain. Even if that means risking their own life to get us saved. It's not that i'd "send" them to their sure death out of some perverse motivation, it's more that i feel it's their responsibility to try. If the phone clearly shattered, well, we'll take our chances from there. If it's just "inaccessible", it'll be his/her job to MAKE it accessible, even if that means to chisel a stair into the island by stone-age-tools.
If you want to, i choose:
"Screw everything I just typed and still try to save both.", only i accept i may not be able to do so, but putting THEIR life at stake in the process, after saving it first. I bought them a CHANCE, if you so want, they better fight for it.
--
Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's true that the OP didn't state that we knew all these outcomes, but why did he bother telling us if we can't use that knowledge to our advantage?
Maybe he just wanted to find out what people would do if they somehow KNEW for sure what all the possible outcomes could be.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If i am to assume omniscience, i have to say i can't answer the poll. That would be a vastly different state of mind, and thinking.
If i knew somehow else, say, from a time loop, i'd still try and get things just right for all of us.
I'm just saying that in these cases the scenario is SO far out there that it's not even of theoretical value.
If you ask directly in a way of "You and another person are about to die. You have a 100% chance to survive with button 1, but person 2 dies for sure. OR you can press button 2, then you BOTH die with 70% chance or survival with 30%...then yes, i'd press button 1, partially out of mathematical logic and mostly out of self preservation."
The refined thing would be the prisoners dilemna.
If you press button 1 together, you get food for another day, but are stuck. If you press button 2 together, you are both rescued with a 60% chance or die with a 40% chance.
If 1 presses button 1 and the other button 2, then the person that pressed button 1 is rescued and the person that pressed button 2 dies. The buttons are on opposite ends of the island.
How long are you stuck there?...
Awkward situation is awkward if you both agree to press button 2, then survive with a bundle of food after pressing buttons ;)
--
Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Maybe it would have value just because OP wants to see if people choose human life over survival.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
the only problem being that he then fails at a definition of "people". It's "would an omniscient being choose human life over survival". Which invalidates it's value again, because it's theory about something we cannot comprehend.
If it's your poll, that's not meant as an insult, but as said, EITHER the setting is wrongly worded then, OR it's a setting that human beings are unable to fully understand.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I see your point. So I guess the better question would be almost all the details in the scenario, except now my ome magical force or something, you can either press button 1 to have the phone beamed to you (which would 100% kill the other person) or you could press button 2 to save the person (which would 100% 'kill' the phone and leave you both trapped on the island).
The point is what Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs said about my poll being about would you value your life more than somebody you don't know and rather have gauranteed survival for yourself instead of possibly dying with the other person.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
i see that, however, it remains an inperfect information scenario.
I would probably still choose "possibly dying with the other person" as they MAY have skills or knowledge that could, somehow, help us in this place...and even if one of us in fact dies, the other may have a chance to continue surviving. If i know nothing about that person, i may take my chances. I can't navigate by stars, and even if i can reach someone by phone, AND know numbers by heart, there's no saying they will know where i am(since obviously it's a magic phone that directly links into a satellite network)...so ya, even if i saw that prototype phone, if i don't know where i am, *shrug*. I'll choose the other person to accompany me.
However: If they really turn out to be a complete moron(e.g. by trying to rape me(or actually pulling that off) and being a general idiot) i'd not be too "noble" to murder them in their sleep and regret my decision.
Ah, now I see your point. OP should have specified anyway. And no, it wasn't my poll. :P