It then follows that he must choose one of the stacks (to stay alive). He may then, upon his whim, choose one, eat and live. I italicized ''whim'' because there is a reason to being whimsical.
In conclusion, reason can still guide the ass to make an appropriate response to the scenario. The only random element (which stack to eat) is also a rational decision and so is NOT random as random really is. — TheMadFool
The decision, then, is random. Whether or not a random decision can be considered an application of free will is then an issue. — Michael
What I'm saying is:
1. The real options are life or death. NOT the two stacks (as explained above).
2. The random element of actually choosing one particular path is actually guided by the realization that not making a choice is going to be harmful/fatal. So it's not really random — TheMadFool
Yes, but there are two ways to avoid death, and no reason to pick one over the other — Michael
The real choices are LIFE or DEATH. The choice is clear here - life. The next obstacle, as you've pointed out, is the juncture where we actually choose between the rwo stacks. In the original paradox it says that there's no reason to choose one over the other. Hence the paradox. However I've shown in my analysis that the ass having chosen life must be compelled (logically) to make a random choice between the two stacks. Therefore the ass has a reason to make a random (if you can call it that) selection. — TheMadFool
It seems to me that any such scenario which posits that, in a deterministic universe, the ass physically couldn't select one of the hay bales to eat (and therefore must starve to death) must assume that the universe is (and has always been, at least within the light cone of the ass) perfectly symmetrical, with a perfect counterbalance of forces. (The universe, of course, includes the ass himself.)If we leave the example scenario as an ass and hay, it opens the door to all kinds of cheap tricks to solve the problem, using the mechanics/determinism of the universe, biology, etc. — Efram
In the original paradox there was no reason to make a choice (random or otherwise).
I have shown you how, in fact, the ass must (has a reason) choose (random or otherwise). — TheMadFool
You've only explained that it has a reason to pick either a) or b) over c). You haven't explained that it has a reason to pick a) over b) or b) over a). That's the choice that leads to the paradox. — Michael
Well, once the ass is logically compelled to make a choice it now has to analyze the options it has. Since both choices are equally acceptable it doesn't matter which is its choice - he may choose randomly. In other words the choice is no longer relevant to the problem. It chooses one and lives. — TheMadFool
– if every choice must be rational – then the ass cannot choose randomly, in which case the ass is incapable of making a choice at all. — Michael
For those who are unfamiliar with the paradox it's about a hungry ass being placed in the exact middle of two identical stacks of grass. Having no reason to choose one over the other (since they're identical) the ass is paralyzed into indecision and eventually dies of starvation.
How do we solve this paradox? — TheMadFool
Well, in my humble opinion, as I've shown above, choosing randomly IS the rational choice. — TheMadFool
This raises an interesting point. I have to brush up on my readings on the identity of indiscernibles (was that one "Leibniz's Law"?), but I seem to recall similar thought experiments involving, say, two identical spheres symmetrically distributed in a symmetrical universe which contains no other objects. Given that there is nothing that could be predicated of the one sphere which could not predicated of the other (including their relational properties, which in this case would amount to "being located such-and-such distance from a sphere with such-and-such characteristics"), in what sense would they be distinct (clearly, they are numerically distinct, as a potential observer could easily see that there are two separate spheres)?They can't be identical, or they couldn't be two things. Two things that are identical are the same thing, and one thing. Like superman and Clark Kent. You can't stand one over here, and one over there. — Wosret
Whether or not a random decision counts as having free will is then an issue. — Michael
Sorry for being dense, but what do you mean by solving? — zookeeper
That it's rational to choose a) or b) over c) is not that the random decision to choose a) over b) or b) over a) is rational. And if it's impossible to randomly choose a) over b) or b) over a) then the ass cannot choose a) or b). That's the problem. — Michael
I have shown and you've agreed that the rational choice is to make a random selection. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.