Newcomb's Problem and the tragedy of rationality
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- I describe my favorite paradox, "Newcomb's Problem," the related "Parfit's Hitchhiker" dilemma, and what they reveal about rationality.
The corresponding podcast episode is here: rationallyspeak...
"OK murderously greedy samaritan, I'll take the ride and give you your blood money. But it's in a clear box in a tent in a carnival."
Hahaha
This is the funniest shit I’ve read in a while. Thank you
@@thatn_ggajandro3197 in that case it's the most productive youtube comment I've left in a while, so thank you
Perfection!
This joke is on another level hahaha
Imagine the Buddha walking into the tent, the thought reader goes into a recursive infinite loop. The Buddha looks at the Scientist, smiles and says, 'The root of all suffering is desire'.
You funny guy
TRUTH
Nice!
Preach
1:52 I flip a coin. Heads, I take both boxes. Tails, I take the one box. Since the machine wouldn't be able to tell which box I was choosing, I'd have a 50/50 shot of getting a million dollars.
Imo the machine is scanning what you would have done before you had that information about the catch. If it's scanning what you would do after that information, your decision comes true no matter what, so might as well have a million. Flipping a coin doesn't affect it really, because the choice is binary and you weren't going to flip a coin if you didn't know about the catch. So it still knows what you would have done, unless you go around flipping coins for every important choice even when there is no catch, in which case the machine retires in shame and now you live in the carvinval tent forever.
SlimThrull, I'd rather have a near-certain chance at $1M.
@@CaptainWumbo That's just it. *I* am not making the choice at all. I'm allowing a random event to make the choice. Since neither I nor the AI know what will happen the AI can't possibly know what I would pick.
nice
@@SlimThrull sure but if you just pick box B then you have 100% chance of making a million. In your scheme, if the AI can't determine your action and just decided randomly then it still has a 50 percent chance of not putting in the million dollars.
As a practical engineer, I’d tease the philosophers by tossing a coin to decide my actions. As a practical problem, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The big money is only in the opaque box if I take just that one box, so I will take it every time, the predictor then making my dreams come true.
Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Disbursement* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Depreciation* again
me wanting 1,000$ and two boxes for my cats : *its free real-estate*
but imagine all the stuff that comes in boxes you could get with 1M
Parfit's Hitchhiker suggests to me that for rational beings in real life the evolution of trust and reprocity is vital, also the social thing called honour. This avoids the tragedy of rationality in real life by such rational agents committing to an agreement. Sticking to the agreement increases your social standing via reliability, and that improves your future survival.
On one hand I understand the rationalists’ views that generate these thought experiments & solutions, but on the other hand I die a little bit inside each time I encounter strategy, calculus & statistics replacing human (animal) felt intuition & evolved virtues. I don’t like the guy for conditioning my safety on being payed $1000 but once I promise to give him the money, even if I’m not actually obligated in any way to give him, I’d keep to my promise. I’d hold a pretty strong conviction that once arrived into town I’d indeed stick to my promise. Of course, I’m not insensitive to circumstances, it could be that I see someone in great suffering & I decide that since it’s in my proximity I can’t ignore their plight and divert the money. In my case there wouldn’t be a calculus because I’m not smart enough to put numbers on particular situations, nor identify a function fit to give out answers relevant to ethical behavior. All I have is felt intuition & some (more or less adequate) abstract reasoning. But the fact that I hold feelings towards those around me & that they in turn hold feelings towards me is important. In a world where everyone around me engages in perfect abstract calculations with respect to their behavior towards me, thus giving me fantastic benefits, I’d still miss the felt way of connecting. There’s an old romanian movie where a little kid is raised by a robot on board a spaceship, and the robot does everything right when it comes to education but when I rewatched it recently it became so clear to me that such a tin can robot, however knowledgeable & intelligent, wouldn’t be able to raise a human (an expressive humanoid robot could do it tho). Humans might behave irrationally and prejudice each other by making stupid decisions but they need emotional rapport. As we offload decisions to cold calculus we’ll lose crucial aspects of our humanity. Joscha Bach says AGI "won’t have any _need_ for a sense of humor" because humor is a particular type of mismatch in evidence vs prediction which generates error cascades at multiple levels, which also implies a temporary loss of agency. 😞 Normies have created so much suffering through their irrationality, and autists have brought so much progress through their rationality. But like all things that turn mainstream, autistic rationality has started showing its ugly (I’d even say insane) side.
Answer to Parfit’s Hitchhiker: have him drive to Newcomb’s Carnival Tent
He’ll get his 1000 dollars
Think more the quickest intuitively way as S is for *Sloth* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as S is for *Spawn* again
Think more the hardest way as *•A Sorry sight:* which is a regrettable and unwelcome aspect or feature.
Vs
Think more the hardest way as *•Acid test:* which is a sure test, given an incontestable result
The second example reminds me of a Seinfeld joke about getting the check for dinner. “Why would I pay for this. I’m not hungry now. I just ate”
The notion that Seinfeld is a "self agent" actually explains a lot
The obvious answer is to: *Take the Brain Scanning Device* and make untold *Billions* of dollars.
Wow! How did nobody think of that!?
Ditto with the hitchhiker's: Punch the guy and steal his car
And then give him $1,000 later just to fuck with everybody.
or just stay home watch YT.
dont care about boxes, scanning machines or $😈
then i am aN anti-skeptic?
Thinking about this problem convinced me to vote. For years, causal decision making lead me to skip voting because the chance of my vote making a difference is approximately zero. But this kind of reasoning leads to a world where a large number of intelligent rational people don't vote, which I suspect does make a difference. I would prefer to live in a world where intelligent rational people vote, so now I act accordingly.
That is the best answer I've seen. The logical follow-up is to tell others about it. Causal decision making dictates that it doesn't make a difference, so why would you. But it's important that people know where it fails.
Actually, I think people just use that as an excuse, and the real reason they don't vote is that they used to put voters in the jury duty pool. But now they use I think DMV records and people haven't updated their reasoning.
I vote when I like the choice. In the case of Hillary vs Trump, I did not vote in order to show that I don't think either choice was good. That is also a rational choice: as South Park joked, choosing between a turd sandwich and a total douche...
In the other hand, this might convince someone not to vote, since it’s because of idiots like us that we get the same crooks in there every four years!
@@skynet4496 love that episode, agree those are the type of choices we get, fundamentally I’m just trying to keep evangelicals out of power.
Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Formulas* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Function keys* again
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as A is for *Accomplish* again
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as B is for *Bold* again
The Newcomb problem with a predictor which is 90% accurate is equivalent to a problem where there is a 90% probability that an evil time-traveler goes back to change the payout of the unknown box. A rational actor who knows there’s a 90% chance they will be punished for greed by an evil time traveler will choose to play non-greedily.
This is also similar to the class of iterative game problems which is different from the class of single game problems. Humans as social creatures are geared toward acting optimally/rationally in iterative game problems, which may look irrational under the lens of a single game.
A famous example is a game with 2 players and $20. Each player can vote to split or vote to steal. If they vote to split, they each get $10. If one votes to steal, he gets $20 and the other gets $0. If both vote to steal, then both get $0. A rational player will always choose to steal because it either increases his reward (from $10 to $20 if the other player chooses to split), or keeps his reward the same (stays at $0 if the other player chooses to steal). Now, here’s the interesting part: the game gets an additional “punish” action, where any player who is stolen from can pay out of his own pocket $50 to penalize the other player $200.
No rational actor would ever choose to punish in such a way because they would lose $50, and a rational actor only looks selfishly at his own interest, not in whether others are rewarded or punished. However, in iterative game theory, where you will again and again play with that same actor, or with other actors in his clan who might learn from his experiences, it’s important to reward or punish them to train their behavior. So for $50 cost you train the other player (punishing him $200, which will re-weight his neural network) to make him act fairly in future games and build your reputation as someone who won’t tolerate unfair treatment.
This is the element often missing in game theory: adding an option to rewrite the opponent’s neural network for future games. Hustlers are very good at this, they will intentionally lose a game of billiards over a bet of $20, and then ask for a $100 game, hoping you think they stink, when really they’re hustling you and will certainly win. Poker is very similar as well, as you can train your opponents over the course of many hands.
Iterative games are way more complicated than single games. And games with evil time-travelers are just iterative games in disguise. Instead of time-traveling, the predictor could merely observe how you played past games which builds up your reputation for being either greedy or not. And then you play a million games, each time under amnesia, but only one is with real money but you don’t know which. And the predictor in each game has memory of how you played all the past ones.
Don't you mean the computer having 90% accuracy would be equivalent to an evil time travel changing the box 10% of the time, not 90%? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
When I was at university, whenever studying logic came up, I always had a headache. This video illustrates why.
It seems to me that the problem is improperly defined. The two box option is a red herring and meaningless. You are choosing between the $1000 and the $1M and your probabilityof getting the $1M is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the scanning machine. So the real problem can be simplified to "is the machine accurate?" If the machine is 100% accurate then always choose $1M because the scanning machine can predict what you will choose and will predict you will choose $1M. If it is not 100% accurate then take it's accuracy and measure it against your personal risk tolerance and choose that way.
Adam White Assume for the moment that the machine is 100% accurate. While we agree that we should one-box (as if we do we get 1M assuming 100% accuracy), there are decision theories that tell us not to because they focus more on what you can effect in the future by the decisions you make, and, in this case, they reason there can be no effect on future outcomes given that the money is already in the box (or not), so you should take both. So you are entirely wrong. It doesn't solely depend on the accuracy of the scanning machine or oracle. It entirely depends on the decision theory the decision maker holds at the time of the oracles prediction. It is a meta game. Hold a decision theory that leads you to two-box, and you get $1000, hold a decision theory that leads you to one-box and you get 1M.
+Cam Spiers Your argument here is changing the meaning of accuracy. You are essentially assuming the scanning machine is incapable of predicting the existence of the meta game. That, to me, does not represent 100% accuracy. Meta layers are still pieces of information. If the scanning machine does not have access to these pieces of information then it is not 100% accurate.
It all comes down to the claim that the machine does what people say it does, make a perfect scan and a perfect prediction. If perfect prediction does not mean what it seems it should mean, then the paradox is a useless puzzle. It's like playing a game of chess where your opponent has a pet eagle that will steal your pieces at random.
Cam Spiers: If any decision theory would suggest that I choose both boxes, than that decision theory is simply an irrational one in this context to work from, so the rational person wouldn't work from it, thus guaranteeing them $1,000,000. After you leave the tent, go back to considering it as an option if you want, but while inside, those are objectively suboptimal choices to consider.
How could you “know” it is 100% accurate? Certainly not by its previous record, even if it has been 100% correct thus far.
William Ward because that’s what the thought experiment is, you are meant to suspend your disbelief and just assume the machine is accurate. It’s the point of the problema
I love this channel. It puts to the forefront the way rational people think.....❤
Think more when I learnt how not to forgive...
Vs
Think more when I learnt how forget
You have just become one of my favourite teachers on TH-cam.
Thankyou, for being you, for simply doing what you do, and for it happening to be exceptional in quality. Good work.
It seems to me that the deep tragedy of rationality is its close association with selfishness.
exactly!!!
I would say it's not a tragedy but an indication of how we should approach morality.
@@PraniGopu Say on.
My first thought was to ask myself why I would believe this side-show "scientist". It must be some kind of con.
Think more the quickest Intuitively way as E is for *Endearment* again
Vs
Think more the quickest Intuitively way as E is for *Emotion* again
Think more the Hardest way as how Images are added to web pages using the tag
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how Definition list helps to define lists with names
Best funded scientist ever...
+Emerson White I could see why... put such an apparatus at strategic places, and the powers that be wouldn't face a threat ever.. They'd know who'd oppose them and can deal with them easily... if they're clever about it.
My 14yr old: “Get your friends who went to the carnival with you to try the different options and split the proceeds” which highlights the biggest flaw with Newcomb’s problem: who goes to a carnival on their own?
If you have four friends, have the first two go in for the million. If the box fails twice, the next two go for the two boxes, and you all come out $400 better off. If the first two succeed, the last two follow suit, and all of you win.
Parfit's Hitchhiker reminds me of that scene in the Granite State episode of Breaking Bad when Walter asks if the cleaner (I don't think he was ever given a name, but he was played by Robert Forster) if he could trust him to get what was left of his fortune to his kids, and Forster says: "Would you believe me if I said I would?"
Here are two criminals (selfish-agents) who have been motivated in their lives of crime by a ruthless rationality. In Walt's case, he initially is motivated by a desire to help his family, but when we see him turn down a chance to work for Grey Matter, he turns it down out of overweening pride. Forster has a front business and an underground business in 'disappearing' criminals with false identities. Both work in cash, with no expectations of trust beyond that of necessity and that which can be backed up by violence. The only way Walt would have been able to persuade Forster to pay would have required muscle that Forster already knows he doesn't have. Hence Walt's plan to drive back to New Mexico and put the screws to his old partners in Grey Matter is brilliant, and takes full advantage of their imperfect information, and effete gullibility.
Think more the wisest way with the reflection of *Grapevine* metaphorically and how *The more outrageous the 'story' the sweeter it tastes*
Vs
Think more the wisest way as how *The Grapevine exists in every organisation, in the heart and mind of every individual*
Think more the wisest way as *Simplicity and Complexity* in *Communication Dynamics*
Vs
Think more the wisest way as why we are often told *'keep it simple' to avoid unnecessary complications in the message we want to communicate*
Have you heard about Douglas Hofstadter's superrationality? Very interesting.
Lu û hm kk(
I have a solution. This paradox is a lot like the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma, it is always rational to defect in a given round. However, when you play multiple rounds, it's usually rational to cooperate. Thus, if you put some weight on future rounds, it can be rational to take the opaque box. If you take only the opaque box now, that means you are the type of person who could get a million dollars in the future.
This also applies across game types. For example, if you take the opaque box now, you are more likely to be the sort of person who'd pay $1000 for a ride to town. Thus, if you treat this paradox as merely a single round in the game, it is rational to take only the opaque box. Additionally, you can prepare for this paradox by making this decision any time it comes up in everyday life.
I remember when we covered this in school. I immediately chose to flip a coin and randomise my choice, thus defeating the experiment.
Clever. Even if the reliable predictor described in the experiment predicts that you will make that decision, it's been described as reliable predictor of choice not a reliable predictor of true randomness so will not be able to predict the coin toss. Defeats the thought experiment by changing it from a set dichotomy of choice, sure, but it doesn't really address the crux of the problem - which is to say, the thought experiment lays out an illustration of a problem: that of two equally valid, equally rational but diametrically opposed decisions with no rational way of determining which one to take in a given instance. Your 'solution' doesn't really solve that problem, so much as avoid addressing it by giving up on rationality altogether in favour of random chance.
@@smockboy I disagree. Flipping the coin produces the highest expected payout consistent with rational action.
There ether is $1 million in the box or there is not. Therefore, choosing both boxes dominates choosing only one.
However, if we choose both the expected payout is only $100.
Choosing only one has an expected payout of $1000000, but that's not a rational choice.
Randomising, though, has an expected payout $250100, because we don't know whether the second box will contain money if we do something other than choose.
@@SylviusTheMad Not only is this the right answer and a rational answer, it is a practical answer, in that it forms the basis for game-theory optimal mixed strategies in poker and other games where one player is trying to guess what the other player will do.
You must be really smart a quick witted
@@fenzelian One of the things I don’t particularly like about these sort of thought experiments is that supposedly it shouldn’t matter whether in the guaranteed box there’s $1 of $100 or $1000 of $100,000 if the other box has $1 million.
But it very much does, and whether a person takes guaranteed money is highly dependent on what their needs are. “Is this enough to change my life?” is probably the most important single factor that goes into what you’re going to choose, and it seems completely irrational not to consider how important that is.
If you’re rich enough, it seems nice and logical to get $1,000 for nothing. But the poorer you are, the more you know that $1,000 will disappear to any number of uncontrollable costs and the only thing that can get you out the hole you’re in is a unbroken string of decades of good luck or else a massive amount of wealth. “But doesn’t a poor person need $1000 more?” They need many thousands more, and their income will fluctuate wildly regardless, so they understand their circumstances perfectly.
Think more the hardest way as W is for Written format
Vs
Think more the hardest way as Z is for Zooming in
Great video!
However, one minor issue is that the predictor can’t be 100% accurate in their prediction otherwise your decision matrix condenses down into a 2 by 1 rather than a 2 by 2 and therefore you should always pick the opaque box.
You have to stipulate that it is possible (even if very unlikely) for the predictor to be wrong to allow for the fact that it’s possible that by picking both boxes, you will get a better result than picking just the opaque box which allows causal decision theory to suggest picking both boxes.
If you're being told that selecting the single box would give 1 million dollars, then that should be included as a signal in the causal decision theory and thus the opaque box becomes the only rational choice. Any other choice where you don't have this information then the normal decision theory happens. In a way, in all situations there can only be one rational choice, or am I missing something?
I've been having the same thought as I watched this.
Mike Sampat but assuming that the machine has unlimited capabilities, if you manage to land in the decision to take only one box, you will have a million dollars. If not, you will have a thousand.
A rational person would chose only one box. Again, assuming they believe the scientist and the machine is totally accurate.
coax, unless I misunderstand the paradox, I would always choose the opaque box. I know myself well enough that even before I met the scientist and saw her two boxes, given the circumstances, I would take the one box. UNLESS you don't know about the brain scan.
Mike Sampat, assuming that the scanner can analyze your intentions/plans, your intention/plan to take both boxes determines that you will only get $1000.
You were told the machine would put the million dollars in the opaque box _after_ you entered the room. You can pick the opaque box but that doesn't mean you were planning on doing so when you walked in the room. To be able to walk out with a million dollars you'd have to be 100% certain that that's what you were going to do before being told about the mind reading machine. If you don't have that information, then the whole mind reading machine thing is just noise, and, from the information _you actually have_ you will walk away with money 100% of the time by taking both boxes.
The obvious answer is to flip a coin, that way you have a 50/50 chance of getting a $1,000,000.
DKshad0w Clever!
Julia Galef How does that help? It won't change what's in the box. Even if the predictor had a perfect record up to that point it won't change what's in the box. It's not a matter of probability either. Considering anything else is magical thinking. There is no evidence that leaving the clear box behind will put money in the other box. The "rational character" is misnamed. It's being applied to include someone who is confused in this situation and behaves irrationally. The should be called "people who are frequently rational but fall apart in intellectually challenging situations".
Somebody gave a thumbs up on my response so I thought it best to update my thinking on this. Following Julia's advice in a subsequent video of hers I began to rethink the situation along other lines. A possible situation is that a person might walk out with both boxes getting only the
$10,000 but now knowing the situation come back another day with the following strategy. In the interim they could have their brain hard wired to only take the opaque box. This ensures that the scanner will detect what will happen and so put the $1,000,000 into the opaque box. That being done when they walk out with that box they will get the million dollars.
So what is the best strategy? Decide to take both boxes or just the opaque one. The game is the same in both cases but the conditions of the player have changed. ( It need not be the same player, the strategy will apply to anyone who knows the with enough time to pre-commit in this manner. )
One radical difference is is that when confronted with the two boxes the subject no longer has a choice as to what they will do. The aspect of choice was removed before they walked into the tent. At this point they can't make a rational choice or an irrational choice. They may feel like they are making a choice , it may look to others like a choice is being made but that is no longer possible.
If they made a choice then it was when they decided to have their brain hard wired to force them to take only the opaque box.
And this gets to the core of the situation. The description of the situation posits the possibility of a choice being made and predictability of what that choice will be. In any situation where predictability applies is the concept of a choice within that situation possible?
Given some closed system where what will happen over the next ten minutes can be correctly predicted can anything within that system be properly said to make any choices at all? They may feel like they are making a choice but if their choice is predetermined it isn't a choice.
The problem gets it force from this. It posits a contradiction. choice being made in a system with prediction. It is a well hidden but definitely there. In such situations people will rely on their presuppositions and unknowingly apply those. Being a contradiction the rule of explosion applies and any conclusion can be reached.
Thanks to Julia for the encouragement to try a variety of view points in analysing a situation.
+DKshad0w Why not flip a 90% biased coin? Or just use a 100% biased coin to always get 1,000,000...
Which is much worse than the 100% chance of getting $1,000,000 by simply grabbing the opaque box only. So... why? The only advantage would be getting that extra little $1,000 out of your strategy.
But +50% chance for a thousand is way way not worth the LOSS of a 50% chance at a million (going from 100% to 50%).
Also, no coin or other random factor is mentioned as being available in the problem, so it'd be cheating anyway, but more importantly, it's worse than one of your main, normal options.
This is at the root of a crazy theory of mine: The evolutionary basis of romantic love is to allow rational actors to credibly commit to support each other in times of hardship. Committing to support each other through sickness and hardship is a rational, beneficial arrangement for both parties, but if either party does end up requiring more support than they can give in return the rational decision would be for the more capable party to abandon the relationship. But, if you can both demonstrate an irrational, innate connection that transcends rationality, then you can credibly enter into a contract that has some chance of surviving even if one person would be better served by leaving.
Or to put it another way, love is irrational. But because of love we can credibly commit to support each other in irrational ways, which is a better state of the world than purely rational actors can achieve.
the assumption "if either party does end up requiring more support than they can give in return the rational decision would be for the more capable party to abandon the relationship" is not necessarily valid or at least is ill-defined. There many rational reasons for partnering up, including external, societal factors that go beyond what both parties can exchange. Also a lot of the benefits of partnering comes from yourself, your own body, psychology and organizational advantage: for example, if your partner takes more than they give, you can think of them in a way analogous to a secretary, someone you pay for a service that's useful to you. Not to mention that balance is impossible due to randomness.
There's a cost to abandon a partner and seek another. Many times this cost can be steep, so this can also be a factor lessening the value of that decision.
There's some meat to this but it's muddied by the value of reproduction in a relationship.
@@whirled_peas This itself is an irrational desire relative to only working for your own benefit within your life; however, given that reproduction is a terminal goal for enough people, the rationality of it cannot be measured.
Having children is basically a worse repeat of the Parfit paradox if you want the children to support you later in life (as a different terminal goal if reproduction is not your terminal goal) because a child could not credibly commit to something that is against their greedy self interest to leave you out to dry when they haven’t been born yet.
Think more the hardest way when I'm wise enough to know that even in the midst of hardest situation that I may face alone...
Vs
Think more the hardest way to not be fool by unusual myths of dreaming while I sleep at night
Think more the quickest intuitively way as A is for *Amphibian* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as A is for *Appetite* again
I don't remember if Dan Dennett covered this one in Intuition Pumps, but he did such a great job deconstructing similar thought experiments that I'd be curious what he would have to say about it.
lmao big fan never thought id see you here
@@kenanfidan4744 LOOL sameee
Wow, its jeff!
watchu doing here Jefe!
Are you why I keep getting recommended her videos?
I'm going with the schrödingers approach: the machine basically predicts the future, so i can influece the decision of the machine by my actions in the future
So it follows, that the contents of the box are not yet decided until i make my decision. So the rational thing to do is to pick the decision which gives me the most money
If you had two buttons, one gives you both boxes, with the opaque one empty, while the other button first fills the box with money, and then gives it to you, it would be clear what to do.
I think its the same situation. Dont look at causality in the normal way, since the machines ability to predict the future changes the causality of the situation
Exactly, i wanted to comment just that. The paradox stems from the fact that there's an agent that can predict the future, not due to rationality. It's almost like a grandfather's paradox but in reverse.
Any situation that includes time travel or predicting the future almost always leads to contradictions.
That's not right and she adresses the objection in the video. You don't need perfect prediction of the future, even a very imperfect prediction will do. And the prediction is based purely on observed correlations, there is no retrocausality. For example, I don't need a magical machine to predict that if I ask a random child in the street to jump three times for no resaon, most of them will do it but most adults will just ignore me. To make this prediction I used a really crappy brainscan, my eyes.
If you had access to much more sophisticated tools, you could make better predictions, but there is no fundamental difference.
@@oumdead9542 It doesn’t need to predict the future in order to act as though it is predicting the future; ergo you can act as though it predicts the future in order to get the most money.
Take the opaque box, enjoy your million dollars and the beautiful red sky at sunset!
$1,999,000 after you pay off the businessman.
Think more the hardest way as *Television is a medium people can rely on*
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how *Television not only strengthens one's belief about the events being telecast on it, but also attracts masses much more than print or radio*
Think more the hardest way as O is for Operating
Vs
Think more the hardest way as P is for Preparing
This seems contrived somehow. The first problem relies on determinism. The second demands that the hitchhiker is sociopathic and the other guy it telepathic and that there is no way of creating an incentive for the hitchhiker to hold his end of the bargain. In such a situation the offer would never be made to the hitchhiker in the first place. I think that is the flaw in both cases actually. In the first problem you are effectively removing choice and then asking someone to make a choice. It's a phoney problem.
Also, with the hitchhiker, couldn't you haggle first, then arrive at a bargain that you would uphold, and perhaps shake on it?
The box problem is simply about "Do I believe them?" no matter how you dress it up.
it seems she doesn't actually understand the material. and this is an observation I'd prefer to deny. "I want to believe the pretty lady"
Then add to the problem whatever method of proof you would like. Say they let you watch as many people as you like do the same thing. Say they let you do it yourself and open one or both boxes as many times as you like (but not actually getting to keep the money at the end) before you choose for real. Then what do you do?
@@sykes1024 There's no quandary there. My post was not about prescribing whether or not a person ought to believe them, but only that the choice they make will depend solely on that.
You provided a scenario in which a person could confidently believe that they will get $1M if they take the opaque box only. So of course, in that case, they should take the opaque box. That follows what I said, not disproves it.
@@SFDestiny She understands it quite clearly. The problem is in the question's set up, not her comprehension. The fact that you seem to believe that she doesn't comprehend the material, while giving a thorough and reasoned explanation makes evident either a) your own lack of comprehension or b) that you didn't pay attention/actually watch through.
@@TheShadowsCloak I've already said, I'd prefer she understood. Your assertions increase my dissatisfaction without shedding new light.. Yes, you're partisan. But, why bother telling *me* ??
Reminds me of the first Harry Potter book, when he gets the stone.
Think more not because I fall in love...
Vs
Think more this is what sincerity and obediently taught us about
Think more if I have a clean mind, with clean heart..
Vs
Think more no matter how tougher the temptations are, I may go through them but never attached to them
Assume the woman is lying, take both boxes, also beat her up and search the tent for money after checking both boxes.
Agree. There's no rational reason to put a million bucks in the box, ever.
"mad" scientist
Think more as Q is for Quarrelling
Vs
Think more as R is for Roaring
Think more the quickest intuitively way as H is for *Henry* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as H is for *Humbert* again
Think more the quickest intuitively way as N is for *Nineveh* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as N is for *Numbers* again
I fell in love with her and her David Bowie eyes about five years ago.Still here.
Think more else there's no sadness expression in sorrows, no tears in disappointment, no smiling face in happiness, no laughter expression in moment of Joy...
Vs
Think more as hard as emotionless stone heart
Think more the quickest intuitively way as L is for *Lovely* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as L is for *Lonely* again
Think more the hardest way as O is for obeyiNG
VS
Think more the hardest way as P is for picturiNG
Think more the hardest way as S is for Sailing
Vs
Think more the hardest way as T is for Tutoring
Think more as I walked through the jungle trial and as I met two fishermen in the river, a collided charcoal loaded pick-up truck, the shutted tractor engine in stone mining etc..
Vs
Think more as I rest myself from a walk, by hearing some vehicle noises from the other side of the hill, the sawmill engine noise, the flowing river noise, variety of crippled wild birds etc
Think more the hardest way as S is for *Sturdy* which means super stronger
Vs
Think more the hardest way as T is for *Tacit* which means muteness
Think more the quickest intuitively way as M is for *Monthly* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as M is for *Motivate* again
Think more the quickest intuitively way as R is for *Reconsider* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as R is for *Ruthless* again
Think more with these steps 🧍🏻♂️-🧍🏻♀️: at time when being single
👩🏻🤝👨🏾: At time before relationship
👩❤️👨: During in relationship
👩❤️💋👨: When Falling in love between one another
👰🏼🤵🏻♂️: Agreeing for Marriage
🤰🏻🙋🏻♂️: 9 months after marriage
👨👩👦: 2 years after marriage
👨👩👧👦: 4 years after marriage
👴🏻👨🏻👩🏻👵🏻: 25 years after marriage
⚰️⚰️: After having grandkids
🪦🪦: This is life, but not 🌋 everytime alone in secret place
Vs
Think more as hard as why I can't be fool even if I knew where I am wrong at
Think more the quickest intuitively way as K is for *Kilowatt* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as L is for *Light* again
Honestly the rational act vs rational character makes a lot of sense. One seems to tackle choices the moment maximizing in the moment while one is fixed and fated to make choices ahead of time to maximize expected output overall.
Think more the quickest intuitively way as M is for *Malignant* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as M is for *Mammals* again
Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Bronchitis* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Bronchos* again
Think more the quickest intuitively way as G is for *Gravitational force* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as G is for *Genomics* again
Think more the wisest way as how *Staying in Control* is a must in *Communication Dynamics*
Vs
Think more the wisest way as the key to handling the dynamics involved *Be as prepared as we can before we start; as communication, once started, cannot easily be stopped*
Think more the hardest way as K is for Knitting
Vs
Think more the hardest way as L is for Landscape captured photography
Think more the quickest intuitively way as N is for *No till farming* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as N is for *Noxious weed* again
Think more as S is for Supervisor
Vs
Think more as T is for Tutor
Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Fodder* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Formulate* again
Think more the hardest way as "Seoduleuda" which means Hurry in Korean
Vs
Think more the hardest way as "Utile" in Latin which means Hurry
Think more the quickest intuitively way as O is for *Organizational* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as P is for *Parameters* again
Think more the hardest way as J is for "Jhut" which means Lie in Hindi language
Vs
Think more the hardest way as K is for "Khel" which means Play in Hindi language
Think more as I think of siblings's efforts
Vs
Think more as I visualized mine
Think more as wise as possible with Computing Q is for QBasic
Vs
Think more as wise as possible with Computing R is for Random Access Memory
Think more the quickest intuitively way as H is for *Helpful* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as H is for *Handful* again
Think more the wisest way in a world where there are so many opinions or views from different kinds of people, which may be a line of quotation from Philosopher, a sentence of paraphrasing from Doctor, a sweet stanza lyrical poem from a Teacher, a meaningful word with sudden Exclamation or apostrophe or question mark from an engineer etc
Vs
Think more the wisest way why it's not good to just agree without understanding the context randomly
Think more the quickest intuitively way as O is for *Optional Partnership* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as P is for *Perfect Quotes* again
Think more the wisest way as why *We thirst for Effective Communication* ?
Vs
Think more the wisest way because *it is a lifeline, we thirst for it, we appreciate it most when it is scarce*
Think more the quickest intuitively way as E is for *E commerce web development* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as E is for *Enterprise Web Development* again
Think more with psychology power to perceive the reality
Vs
Think more with mind-readering power to challenge the virtuality
Think more the Hardest way as how I The Proletkult's director, Vsevolod Meyerhold, became a big influence on Eisenstein.
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how Eisenstein furthered Muyerhold's theory with his own ''montage of attractions"
Think more the hardest way as History of Documentary Films content after Post production content..
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how the genre 'Documemtary films" has made its presence felt right from the beginning of film histoty
Think more the quickest intuitively way as J is for *Jaguar* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as L is for *Leopard* again
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as M is for *Matrices* again
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as N is for *Number System* again
Think more the hardest way as Fifth research stage of making a documentary is *The Branches of the issue*
Vs
Think more the Hardest Way as Sixth research stage of making a documentary is *Challanges* which on the other hand an issue when explored in a film, is incompleted when there is nothing introduced that challanges it
Think more with the best part of being a criticizer
Vs
Think more with the best part of being a blameless
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as O is for *Operating System* again
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as P is for *Personal Computer* again
Think more the quickest intuitively way as C is for *Cows* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as C is for *Crops* again
Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Breach* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as B is for *Bought* again
Think more the hardest way as A is for Symbolic
Vs
Think more the hardest way as T is for Turmeric
Think more the Hardest way as Q is for Quadrilateral angle again
Vs
Think more the hardest way as R is for Rhombus again
The perfect hitchhiker paradox is also based on belief in Contra Causal free will. The mistake is to hold the past fixed when considering both options.
Think more the Hardest way as why it is very important to select and use the right word or phrase to articulate the ideas
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as why a radio writer must use a vocabulary of simple and widely understood words
Think more with remaining 220 minutes...
Vs
Think more with 80 minutes Creative Arts and Education, and 40 minutes with Computer
Think more the quickest intuitively way as K is for *Kinetic* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as L is for *Lunatic* again