Indiscernability of identicals (if I'm remembering right... too lazy to look up...). As in, if two things are identical, they share all of the same properties, and there aren't two things there is one thing. Identicality of indiscernables is that if two things share all of the same properties, then they're identical. This second one is less obvious, and doesn't seem necessary.

I think that in stipulating that two things are identical, you either mean in some respect, but distinct in others, or you are stipulating that there aren't two things at all. That's just what identical means. Two things can be completely indistinguishable, indistinct, but not be identical if you reject the IOD, but stipulating that they're identical does necessitate that they share all of the same properties, and are actually the same thing. — Wosret

I think this misses the point. Obviously the two stacks of hay are different in that they're two stacks of hay, located in different places and being constituted of different instances of matter. But the premise is just that there's nothing about either of them for there to be a rational preference for one over the other. It's not that one's closer, or safer, or tastier, or more nutritious. So how does one choose which to eat? Is it possible to make a random decision, or would we end up like the circuit in metastability? And if we can make a random decision, is this actually something that we choose, or is it just something that happens to us, like the circuit being influenced by an arbiter?

I don't think so, I realize that the point is that because they're identical, that it is impossible to rationally preference one over the other, because what could be said of one, can be said of the other as well -- but I'm saying, and you're agreeing that this obviously isn't so. One can actually come up with a bunch of things that would be true of one and not the other. Say the wind is coming in from the left, and the pig smells that one but not the one on the right (not to mention the other reasons I've given).

I don't think so, I realize that the point is that because they're identical, that it is impossible to rationally preference one over the other, because what could be said of one, can be said of the other as well -- but I'm saying, and you're agreeing that this obviously isn't so. One can actually come up with a bunch of things that would be true of one and not the other. Say the wind is coming in from the left, and the pig smells that one but not the one on the right (not to mention the other reasons I've given). — Wosret

The premise is that there isn't anything about either that provides for a rational preference – or at least nothing that the ass is aware of.

So, assuming that there is no (known) reason to prefer one over the other, what does the ass do? Is it incapable of acting, or can it make a random decision? And if it's capable of making a random decision, would the decision actually count as a free choice?

I know that, and I'm saying that that can't be because it doesn't make any sense for the reasons I've given.

Wosret, clearly the meaning of the term "identical" in this instance is that, as far as the ass's needs are concerned, neither pile of grass has a property more or less important or interesting than the other. Both are the same colour, same nutritional value, same quantity, etc.

If you want to be pedantic, you could start arguing that there's no such thing as a "pile of grass" and maybe even throw in some Sorites paradox for added awkwardness. Maybe throw in some Buddhist koans about how the ass doesn't eat the grass, but the grass does in fact eat the ass.

This is partly also why it's beneficial to abstract away the problem. Keep the focus on what is important so that you don't get distracted by things that are ultimately irrelevant.

I ain't the one forwarding paradoxes, I's the one dissolvin'em.

The difficulty here is that you haven't explained how the ass can choose a) over b) or b) over a) — Michael

This is no longer a problem. In the paradox the ass has NO reason to make a choice.

As I've explained the ass HAS a reason to make a choice.

Either the decision is logical or it is random. It can't be logical as you've already explained and I agree. However it can be random but with the added qualification that there IS a reason to being random.

Indiscernability of identicals (if I'm remembering right... too lazy to look up...). As in, if two things are identical, they share all of the same properties, and there aren't two things there is one thing. Identicality of indiscernables is that if two things share all of the same properties, then they're identical. This second one is less obvious, and doesn't seem necessary. — Wosret

Yes, your summary is accurate, as far as I recall.

From Wiki:

The indiscernibility of identicals
For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.

∀ x ∀ y [ x = y → ∀ P ( P x ↔ P y ) ]

The identity of indiscernibles
For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.

∀ x ∀ y [ ∀ P ( P x ↔ P y ) → x = y ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
— wiki

I think that in stipulating that two things are identical, you either mean in some respect, but distinct in others, or you are stipulating that there aren't two things at all. That's just what identical means. Two things can be completely indistinguishable, indistinct, but not be identical if you reject the IOD, but stipulating that they're identical does necessitate that they share all of the same properties, and are actually the same thing.

But, I believe the point is that the hay bales are not numerically identical, even if they are identical in all of their relevant properties (indeed, even if they are identical in all of their properties, period).

In any event, some forms of this paradox invoke an ass who is equally hungry and thirsty, and is placed equidistant from a bale of way and a bowl of water, each of which are equally desirable to him. So, if this identicality issue presents a serious impediment to anyone's considering the paradox, then they should feel free to think about this version, instead.

This is no longer a problem. In the paradox the ass has NO reason to make a choice.

As I've explained the ass HAS a reason to make a choice.

Either the decision is logical or it is random. It can't be logical as you've already explained and I agree. However it can be random but with the added qualification that there IS a reason to being random. — TheMadFool

You keep missing the point. Given that it has to pick either a) or b), how does it actually make the random decision to pick one over the other? And is this random decision, if even possible, a free choice?

All you're saying is that it has a reason not to pick c). But there are still two options left to it – a) or b) – and you haven't addressed that decision. That it has a reason to pick one isn't that it has a reason to pick this particular one. And it's picking this particular one that is the problem.

Knowing that I have to play football doesn't help me decide which position to play. Knowing that I have to go to the hospital doesn't help me decide which route to take. Knowing that I have to eat some hay doesn't help me decide which bale to eat.

At the moment your answer is akin to saying that because I have a reason to escape the burning building I should just do it, without explaining how to escape the burning building, or even if it's possible. So saying that I have a reason to make a random decision doesn't explain how a random decision is made, or even if it's possible.

And maybe the only way to escape the building is if a Fireman rescues me, in which case I'm not the one doing the escaping. So maybe the only way to make a "random" decision is if something else makes the decision for me, in which case I'm not exercising free will.

The main issue in the paradox is the ass unable to make a rational choice between the two bales of grass. Reason/rationality fails.

What I've shown is that rationality can still guide the ass - it is rational to choose. How it does that is immaterial. If you want to know well, either the actual choosing is rational or random. We already know it can't be rational (isn't that why we have the pardox). So the ass has to make a random choice.

So the ass has to make a random choice. — TheMadFool

And the problem is that random choices might not actually be possible (e.g. hard determinism) or that random choices aren't actually choices but things that happen to us.

If you're making the assumptions that a) there is an overall objective to the choice (such as your life vs death dichotomy) and b) that you can just happily add randomness into the decision making process, maybe the solution will work.

But say instead that the ass isn't driven to survive, but is instead motivated purely by a desire to eat. What then?

This is the trap I was hoping to avoid by abstracting away the problem. We're now talking very specifically about a donkey that we have decided has a desire to live and is capable of tossing a coin. Everything about the essence of the problem has just been left behind.

And the problem is that random choices might not actually be possible (e.g. hard determinism) or that random choices aren't actually choices but things that happen to us — Michael

That's another story isn't it. Also my response to this is to observe how we behave. In a lifetime we face many situations that are similar to this. Do we behave like the ass and well, starve ourselves? No we do not. We simply make a random choice and get on with it. Fact seems to contradict your hypothesis.

Everything about the essence of the problem has just been left behind — Efram

Yes I could've entirely missed the point of the paradox. However I focussed on how a rational being can be stumped by such a scenario - as per the paradox. I showed that rationality can still be used to come to a decision.

I'm curious as to what you think is the main ossue here. I'd be grateful if you could clarify. Please dumb it down as I'm not so bright (perhaps you already got that from my posts). Thanks.

I don't think paradox was ever intended to be taken so seriously to begin with, but at its heart lies this question about rationality.

Forget the ass. Forget the grass. Forget life and death. When presented with two options and the outcome of either choice would be equally beneficial and equally harmful - i.e. there is no clear reason to choose one over the other - how does a decision get made?

I don't intend to eventually push any particular opinion; I just think there's more interesting ground to be covered if you can look beyond the donkey.

Thanks. I understand now. I'm working on a particular instance of a more general problem.

However my particular solution (if you agree) can be generalized. The choice is not between two things of equal appeal. The choice is between loose and win. This is the real issue and it compells us to make the choice.

The solution can be used where "win and lose" conditions can be defined, where a random choice is possible and where there are no negative consequences of making a random choice.

To expand on the "win and lose" point: You're taking the original problem - which is how to reach a decision - and hiding it behind this idea of there being an objective to achieve. That is to say, rather than solving the problem of how the donkey decides between two identical piles of grass, you've changed the problem into, how does the donkey take a course of action that keeps it alive. The original problem goes unsolved.

That is to say, rather than solving the problem of how the donkey decides between two identical piles of grass, you've changed the problem into, how does the donkey take a course of action that keeps it alive. The original problem goes unsolved — Efram

I explained in my previous posts that there being 2 stacks of grass is equivalent to there being no stack of grass, as far as logic is concerned. The ass cannot decide - two identical choices is equivalent to there being no choice. Here, again as far as logic is concerned, choice is simply an illusion.

Then I explained that the real choice here is between satisfying hunger or going hungry. These choices are the real choices available to the ass. I'm sure this approach can be generalized as I think that's what you have in mind. Rationality is now applicable to the problem now. The ass has a logical reason to make a choice. However as explained above the act of choosing between the two stacks of grass cannot be rational. It has to be random - that is the only option available.

In summary I've shown how the ass can still be guided by rationality to make a decision, given the circumstances.

No, you have not. Read the replies again. They explain the issue the thought experiment brings up: how do we choose between two equal choices when we have no reason to choose one over the other? You are getting caught up on the details of thought experiment itself. You are like the person who hears the trolley problem and tries to find some reason to stop the trolley without killing anyone, when the real point is asking whether it is better to kill one person or let five people die.

You are getting caught up on the details of thought experiment itself. You are like the person who hears the trolley problem and tries to find some reason to stop the trolley without killing anyone, when the real point is asking whether it is better to kill one person or let five people die. — Chany

Sometimes in such thought experiments or problems it is difficult to know which aspects we can safely abstract away, and which we can sensibly retain. Like those problems concerning how to figure out which light switch controls which light bulb in a room we can only view once. The solutions often concern feeling light bulbs to see if they're warm and such.

Obviously, it would defeat the purpose of the problem if we say we will set up a surveillance camera in the room: such solutions leave us too much latitude. On the other hand, if we got too abstraction-crazy and claimed that the fact that the problem involves light bulbs in particular is of no consequence to the logical structure of the problem, we would have abstracted ourselves right out of a valid and legitimate solution.

how do we choose between two equal choices when we have no reason to choose one over the other? — Chany

And I've explained that this is an illusion of choice. There's no way reason and logic can solve this conundrum. It has to be a random selection.

You are getting caught up on the details of thought experiment itself. You are like the person who hears the trolley problem and tries to find some reason to stop the trolley without killing anyone, when the real point is asking whether it is better to kill one person or let five people die. — Chany

Wouldn't saving everybody be the best solution?

And I've explained that this is an illusion of choice. There's no way reason and logic can solve this conundrum. It has to be a random selection. — TheMadFool

Or it could be that the ass cannot make a decision or its mind has a built-in deterministic way of dealing with situations like this.

Wouldn't saving everybody be the best solution? — TheMadFool

Trolley problems are set up so that way you are faced with a dilemma: you must either kill one person or let five people die. We would like to save everyone, but the thought experiment says we cannot and that we have to make a decision between the two options. Any attempt to weasel your way out by creating some scenario in which everyone lives will be explained away in the thought experiment.

Or it could be that the ass cannot make a decision or its mind has a built-in deterministic way of dealing with situations like this. — Chany

The fact is that we do make random choices in our lives. We never get stuck like the ass. I'm sure if you were ever hungry you wouldn't get paralyzed between two boxes of cereals. Fact shows that we are capable of making random choices.

The fact is that we do make random choices in our lives. We never get stuck like the ass. I'm sure if you were ever hungry you wouldn't get paralyzed between two boxes of cereals. Fact shows that we are capable of making random choices. — TheMadFool

We make choices between competing options and sometimes those choices are extremely difficult. It does not follow from this fact alone that we have observed an actual situation of two equally compelling choices that Buridan's Ass describes. Nor has it been demonstrated that, even in the hypothetical case it has been shown, the mechanism that does the choice is actually random and not deterministic.

It does not follow from this fact alone that we have observed an actual situation of two equally compelling choices that Buridan's Ass describes. — Chany

I'll offer you conclusive proof. Please invent a situation that accurately captures Burridan's Ass' situation. I'll be happy to take the role of the ass (X-) ). You can observe what I do.

I can't. That's my point. There is no way (at least based in modern science and human ability) to set up a real world Buridan's Ass scenario that is not open to criticism. I would have to set up two exactly compelling options, but I have no way of knowing if anything I present is actually equally compelling. I would need to ensure they remain equal until you make your choice, which is practically, if not actually, impossible. If you think I can, then you misunderstand the words "equally compelling".

You could easily show me 2 cans of coke, one in each hand and ask me to choose.

How can I ensure the case to pick each can is perfectly symmetrical and equally appealing in your mind and remains that way as you go through the decision making process?

How can I ensure the case to pick each can is perfectly symmetrical and equally appealing in your mind and remains that way as you go through the decision making process? — Chany

Just holding the two cans in each hand suffices as equality in all respects to me.

But its not. You have to set up controls for the experiment to eliminate variables that could make the can unequal. If not, there is always a way for me to criticize the exercise and claim the two cans were not equal in your mind. I am saying it is impossible to account for all the control variables in this case, which is required for the experiment to work.