• An unintuitive logic puzzle
    There's no reason in your scenario that anybody could figure out their own eye colour. — flannel jesus

    It’s explained in the post.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus
    I already answered. I don’t know. But the reasoning nonetheless allows all blues and browns to correctly deduce their eye colour and leave on the 100th day, answering the question in the OP.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    your reasoning is still based on nothing other than unenlighteneds reasoning, and he's already told you his reasoning is based on the guru saying something. — flannel jesus

    And as I have repeatedly explained, it doesn’t actually require the Guru to say anything. It’s a red herring. It might appear to be necessary, but counterintuitively it isn’t.

    As evidenced by the fact that my reasoning allows all blues and browns to correctly deduce their eye colour and leave on the 100th day, answering the question in the OP.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus


    As I said, I’m not sure. But it appears to be a fact that if the blue-eyed people reason in such a way then they correctly deduce that they have blue eyes and that if the brown-eyed people reason in such a way then they correctly deduce that they have brown eyes.

    Therefore either the reasoning is sound or it’s a coincidence.

    Just as you don’t appear to be sure why green must verbally express what everyone already knows to be true.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    you haven't justified that it does, is why — flannel jesus

    I explained the reasoning that each person performs and the conclusion they draw from it; a conclusion that is correct.

    I don’t understand what else you’re looking for.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    the reasoning is incomplete — flannel jesus

    How can it be incomplete it it allows all brown and blue to leave knowing their eye colour?
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus


    The one with 3 brown, 3 blue, and 1 green
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    You're saying "and yet" as if you've demonstrated that. You haven't — flannel jesus

    I demonstrated it in the example above.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    I don't think it's sound or a coincidence. I don't think it's correct. — flannel jesus

    And yet every blue-eyed person leaves knowing they have blue eyes and every brown-eyed person leaves knowing they have brown eyes. So what do you mean by it “not being correct”?

    You have to follow the logic carefully one step at a time to find that out. It's very subtle and honestly strange - that what makes this such a good logic puzzle. It's completely counterintuitive, but also, once you fully grok it, undeniably true. That gives it this really unique flavour as a puzzle. — flannel jesus

    And I think that it goes even further: it may be counterintuitive, but one can get to the correct answer without green saying anything.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    If it doesn't matter what the green eyed person says, why is his presence required at all? — flannel jesus

    I’m not sure, but my reasoning does allow all brown and all blue to leave knowing their eye colour, so either it’s sound or it’s a very lucky coincidence.

    But as a question to you, why would it require green verbally expressing what everyone already knows?
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus


    I don’t think that’s a comparable scenario. I think a minimal example requires 3 blue, 3 brown, and 1 green.

    Each blue reasons: green sees blue, and so if the two blue I see don’t leave on the second day then I must be blue and green sees brown, and so if three brown I see don’t leave on the third day then I must be brown.

    Therefore on the third day each blue knows they are blue and leaves

    Each brown reasons: green sees brown, and so if the two brown I see don’t leave on the second day then I must be brown and green sees blue and so if the three blue I see don’t leave on the third day then I must be blue.

    Therefore on the third day each brown knows they are brown and leaves.

    Each person (other than green) leaves knowing their eye colour, all without anyone saying anything. The proof is in the pudding, as it were.

    Or is it just a coincidence?
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    No. It does depend on the guru saying so unless everyone already knows that everyone already knows at the same time, as I suggested above and you ignored. This is the extra information that the guru imparts: she doesn't inform them about what she sees, but she puts everyone in a synchronised state of knowing each other's knowing. That is what is required for the nested hypotheticals to begin. — unenlightened

    She doesn’t need to say anything for perfect logicians to be in a synchronised state. At every moment they are in a synchronised state and will apply the same reasoning.

    And if new people arrive or are killed by tigers during this process they’ll adapt their premises (e.g “the Guru sees either N or N+1 blue-eyed people”) as needed.

    But the factual knowledge that I can see multiple blue eyes and thus already know that the guru can see blue eyes cannot be imported into the counterfactual hypothetical wherein the blue eyed person would know no such thing because he would not himself see blue eyes, and thus could not know therefore that the guru saw blue eyes ... wait for it ... UNLESS SHE SAID SO. — unenlightened

    She doesn’t need to have actually said something in the “real” world in which I see 100 blue-eyed people for me to stipulate that she said something in this counterfactual hypothetical world in which I don’t see any blue-eyed people.

    In the “real” world I know that she sees at least one blue-eyed person even without her saying so, and so if it helps I can just assume that she says so even if she doesn’t.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    If there's an island with 2 people and the guru and he doesn't say anything, and there's no telepathy, nobody knows anything — flannel jesus

    And if in this scenario I have brown eyes then the Guru wouldn’t say “I see someone with blue eyes”, and yet we are allowed for the sake of argument to assume that she does.

    Given that the Guru does in fact say it when there are 201 people we are allowed to assume that she still says it in a hypothetical scenario with 2 people.

    And given that we all know what the Guru sees without her saying it when there are 201 people we are allowed to assume that we still do in some hypothetical scenario with 2 people.

    The reasoning is sound in either case and gets us to the correct answer.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus


    I’m not stipulating random things, as shown by the fact that if the people on the island were to apply my reasoning then they would all correctly deduce the colour of their eyes. That’s not just some happy coincidence; it’s because the reasoning is sound.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    If there's only one guy with blue eyes, he would only know that the guru sees blue eyes if the guru told him. — flannel jesus

    In practice, perhaps, but the logic doesn't require that the Guru say anything. The logic only requires that I know that the Guru sees at least one blue-eyed person and one brown-eyed person.

    Given that our reasoning stipulates (contrary to the facts) that I don't see any other blue-eyed person but that the Guru still says "I see at least one blue-eyed person", it can also stipulate (contrary to the facts) that I don't see any other blue-eyed person but that I know that the Guru still sees at least one blue-eyed person.

    And I can stipulate all of this even if I in fact have brown eyes.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    Not in the scenario with one blue eyed person they don't — flannel jesus

    I see 100 people with blue eyes and (unknown to me) I have brown eyes. The Guru says "I see at least one blue-eyed person". Now I imagine a scenario where these 100 blue-eyed people don't exist.

    If I can still assume that the Guru says "I see at least one blue-eyed person" then I can still assume that the Guru sees at least one blue-eyed person, but doesn't say so.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    but how would he know the guru knows that? The guru didn't say anything. He has no idea what the guru knows — flannel jesus

    Every person on the island already knows that the Guru sees at least one person with blue eyes and one person with brown eyes, whether or not she says so, as explained here. Given this fact:

    If I don't see anyone with blue eyes then I have blue eyes, else if I don't see anyone with brown eyes then I have brown eyes.

    This reasoning is valid even though I do in fact see others with blue eyes and brown eyes.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    How does the blue eyed person know they have blue eyes in that scenario? What's the single blue eyed persons reasoning in that scenario? — flannel jesus

    The reasoning is: if the Guru sees at least one person with blue eyes and if I don't see anybody with blue eyes then I have blue eyes.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    The first sentence of his reasoning clearly depends on the guru saying what she said. — flannel jesus

    No it doesn't. It only depends on "the Guru sees at least one blue-eyed person" being true. It doesn't depend on her saying so.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ok so your reasoning is different from unenlighteneds then. Can you tell us what it is? — flannel jesus

    It's the same. Here are unenlightened's exact and complete words:

    Reveal
    If there was only 1 person w. blue eyes, that person would see no blue eyes and therefore know they had blue eyes and leave that night.
    If there were 2, they would both see one person w blue eyes and when they did not leave the first night, they would both know the second night that they must have blue eyes and leave.


    Notice that he doesn't mention the Guru or what she says at all.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus


    The first step in the reasoning is "the Guru sees at least one person with brown eyes". She doesn't need to say "I see at least one person with brown eyes" for this first step to be true. Her saying so is a red herring.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    Step 1 of his reasoning completely relies on the guru saying what he said. Can you see that? — flannel jesus

    That's the red herring; it doesn't. Everyone already knows that she sees at least one brown-eyed person, so her expressing this fact verbally provides no new information.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    Also I think the brown eyed people would not know their eye-colour for another 99 days after the blue eyes left, but only that they themselves didn't have blue eyes. — unenlightened

    Why do you think that? Imagine the Guru were to have said "I see at least one blue-eyed person and at least one brown-eyed person".

    But as I said to flannel, the Guru doesn't even need to say it because everyone already knows that she sees at least one blue-eyed person and at least one brown-eyed person, and so her saying it is a red herring.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    The reasoning for blue eyed people specifically works because the guru said he sees blue eyes. — flannel jesus

    The Guru doesn't need to say it. Him saying it is a red herring. As perfect logicians, every blue-eyed person already knows that the Guru sees at least one blue-eyed person and every brown-eyed person already knows that the Guru sees at least one brown-eyed person.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    What's the reasoning for brown eyed people? Unenlightened gave reasoning for blue-eyed people — flannel jesus

    The same, just change "blue" for "brown".
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    ↪flannel jesus


    Reveal
    If they're perfect logicians then on the first day that they arrived on the island, even before the Guru speaks:

    1. The Guru knows that 100 blue-eyed people each see either 99 or 100 blue-eyed people and either 100 or 101 brown-eyed people and that 100 brown-eyed people each see either 99 or 100 brown-eyed people and either 100 or 101 blue-eyed people.

    2. Every blue-eyed person knows that 99 blue-eyed people each see either 98 or 99 blue-eyed people, either 100 or 101 brown-eyed people, and either 1 or 2 green-eyed people, that 100 brown-eyed people each see either 99 or 100 brown-eyed people, either 100 or 101 blue-eyed people, and either 1 or 2 green-eyed people, and that the Guru sees either 99 or 100 blue-eyed people, either 100 or 101 brown-eyed people, and either 0 or 1 green-eyed person.

    3. Every brown-eyed person knows that 99 brown-eyed people each see either 98 or 99 brown-eyed people, either 100 or 101 blue-eyed people, and either 1 or 2 green-eyed people, that 100 blue-eyed people each see either 99 or 100 blue-eyed people, either 100 or 101 brown-eyed people, and either 1 or 2 green-eyed people, and that the Guru sees either 99 or 100 brown-eyed people, either 100 or 101 blue-eyed people, and either 0 or 1 green-eyed person.

    Using the reasoning given by unenlightened, on day 100 every blue-eyed person would leave knowing that they have blue eyes, every brown-eyed person would leave knowing that they have brown eyes, and the Guru would stay knowing that they have neither blue nor brown eyes.

    The Guru doesn't need to say anything; her saying either "I see at least one blue-eyed person" or "I see at least one brown-eyed person" provides no new information and is a red herring.
  • An unintuitive logic puzzle
    I was wondering if this forum has SPOILER technology — flannel jesus

    [hide]this is hidden[/hide]

    Reveal
    this is hidden
  • Gun Control
    I was talking about a scenario where tyranny has already happened, with the help of the military and police and there are no constitutional rights anymore. — RogueAI

    And they probably would have already stopped the sale of guns and ammunition anyway.
  • Gun Control
    And do you see that your claim of mootness fails once it is recognized that a system can be more or less monopolistic? — Leontiskos

    It doesn't.
  • Gun Control
    Apparently your claim is that both governments possess an equal monopoly of coercion. — Leontiskos

    It isn't.

    That wasn't my argument at all. Why don't you try to state the argument I gave so that I understand what you are attempting to argue against. — Leontiskos

    That was an aside, not directed specifically at you but at any attempt to defend the right to own guns on the need to prevent a tyrannical government.
  • Gun Control
    How so? Present your argument. — Leontiskos

    I don't really understand your request. It's a simple statement of fact: given that governments already have a "monopoly of coercion" even without stricter gun control — e.g. cruise missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, fully automatic weapons, etc. — arguing against stricter gun control on the grounds that it will give governments a monopoly of coercion is moot.

    And in general I think that actual innocent people being killed by civilians with guns is a bigger concern than some alarmist argument that a government could potentially turn tyrannical.
  • Gun Control
    If there’s nothing you can do about it and you’re not affected or responsible, shooting your mouth off is just a way to make you feel good about yourself. — T Clark

    Noted.

    The USA should introduce stricter gun control. I suspect that it will save many lives. The benefits outweigh the cost.
  • Gun Control
    Specifically, you want the government to possess the coercive and lethal force of guns and no one else. — Leontiskos

    The government has a lot more than guns at their disposable, so this seems to be a moot point unless you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be allowed cruise missiles and Challenger II tanks.
  • Gun Control
    Why do you feel the need to tell us how we should act. — T Clark

    That’s what normative ethics is? Should we not criticise the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the criminalisation of homosexual relationships in Brunei?
  • Gun Control
    To further add to your point, dynamite is really good at killing humans, but no one wants to outlaw that. — MrLiminal

    He did specifically refer to weapons and not just deadly tools is general, which would cover most things as we’re quite squishy.

    I could kill you with a pencil.
  • Gun Control
    I don't see any rationale behind making weapons with which you can kill humans. — MoK

    Hunting and defence.
  • Free Speech - Absolutist VS Restrictive? (Poll included)
    ↪NOS4A2


    Whether machine, plant, or human, the involuntary behaviour of any sense receptor is causally influenced by external stimuli according to the laws of nature, which may be either deterministic or, if quantum indeterminacy is a factor and is not explained by hidden variables, stochastic. These stimuli are causally responsible for (even if not exclusively) subsequent steps in the causal chain — ended only if something like a non-physical mind interferes.

    So there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy and I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights".

    As such your defence of free speech absolutism fails.

    That’s all I have left to say on the matter.
  • Free Speech - Absolutist VS Restrictive? (Poll included)
    Ah, you're a much more patient person than I. — AmadeusD

    I've about reached my limit.
  • Free Speech - Absolutist VS Restrictive? (Poll included)
    I don’t know how biological autonomy is compatible with causal determinism. — NOS4A2

    Because this is how you defined autonomy:

    No, by autonomous I mean organisms can self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, and maintain themselves. They are capable of creating their own components and structures, continually renewing and reproducing themselves. They can spontaneously create and maintain their complex organization from simpler components. They can maintain their integrity and functionality through ongoing processes of internal regulation and repair, counteracting degradation and external degradation like disease.

    Other than your use of the term "spontaneously", which I didn't take to be literal given that you previously denied that uncaused causes occur in the body, nothing here is incompatible with the causal determinist's claim that everything that happens is caused to occur by antecedent events according to the laws of nature.

    But I'm curious, if plants do not have free will and if their behaviour is not causally determined, then what is going on with them? Is there some third option?

    Yesterday you made some interesting comments about human beings and it all being too complex, but I see you’ve changed your mind and deleted them. Which external forces caused that behavior? — NOS4A2

    I value brevity. So I often re-read my comments and then re-write them to slim them down if nobody has replied.
  • Free Speech - Absolutist VS Restrictive? (Poll included)
    And what would a medical examiner say killed him? Is their answer a reduction to the absurd? — NOS4A2

    Again, it is both the case that head trauma from the fall is the cause of death and the case that I killed him by pushing him off a cliff.

    No, you equivocate between “kill” and “murder”. I think you realized your mistake and, once again, we can watch the goalposts widen. — NOS4A2

    If I murdered someone then I killed them. Therefore if I didn't kill them then I didn't murder them and so ought not be convicted and imprisoned for murder.

    Then what is the difference between words that compel agreement and those that do not? — NOS4A2

    This is like asking for the difference between a push that causes someone to fall to their death and a push that doesn't. It's such a misguided question.

    I never said plants have free will. — NOS4A2

    This was our exchange:

    Do you actually understand what causal determinism is, and how it differs from something like agent-causal libertarian free will? Some object "spending the energy and doing the work" does not prove that it has agent-causal libertarian free will. — Michael

    True, but I’m not just speaking of any object. I’ve long specified my application of agent-causal free will strictly to biological organisms. There are plenty reasonable people who can differentiate between machines and biological organisms. But for some reason you can’t, or refuse to.

    Unlike biological organisms, machines are not autonomous. They’re heteronomous. They cannot self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, nor maintain themselves.     — NOS4A2

    Plants are biological organisms. Therefore if plants do not have agent-causal libertarian free will then your comments above are a red herring, and your conclusion a non sequitur. Autonomy as you've defined it is compatible with causal determinism.
Home » Michael