Interesting. Thank you, Ian.
Which is why, suicide threats, no matter how implausible and how subtle, from
loved onces are so devastating.
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian P. Cook
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/14/2007 5:01:42 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pascal's Wager and Kant's Categorical Imperative
David,
>And BTW, I think the Pascal analogy is excellent, with due attention to
>Marcus' caveat about measurability.
>db
I guess I'd seen Marcus' point as demonstrating why Pascal's wager wasn't at
all applicable. As I understand it, the wager is entirely dependent on the
payoff to believing in God's existence (and God existing) being infinite. It's
the only way it totally dominates all other actions (vs non belief whether God
does or does not exist, that is). Otherwise it's just a cost-benefit
calculation. And while we can certainly talk about the benefits of acting in
regards to climate change now even if the change isn't primarily anthropogenic
vs non-action when it is, the only way to make the analogy, I would think, is
to suggest that action now has an infinite payoff. The trouble with that,
though, is that it means we should accept ANY further wager that might result
in the outcome with the infinite payoff being realized. One should, it seems,
be willing to take my wager on whether or not I can personally reverse climate
change in exchange for all your wealth. Whether or not I could do it, there
just might be a non-zero subjective probability that I COULD, which means you
should take the bet -- since the expected payoff is still infinite -- and hand
over everything. In terms of Pascal's wager, that is the argument for doubters:
if you are even willing to entertain a tiny belief that there is some non-zero
probability that God exists, you should still pray/become a "believer". No
matter the personal effort and cost of belief, there is no way it will surpass
the expected value of the bet. This doesn't work if the payoff isn't infinite,
since some countervailing return to tip things back towards the non-believer
side.
On 8/14/07, David Breecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry Nick, I inadvertantly omitted your key question to which I was replying,
which was:
>>I do worry about complexity thinking leading to fatalism. If a goddamned
butterfly can cause a climate crash, why take responsibility for ANYTHING
we do. We should all be dionysians.
I think Kant offers a solid explanation for why one should (must) act
"responsibly." At the very least, he's the only reason I vote in Presidential
elections. More tomorrow if folks are still interested, when I'm less
Dionysian and more sober-- I mean, Apollonian ;-)
And BTW, I think the Pascal analogy is excellent, with due attention to Marcus'
caveat about measurability.
db
On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
David,
Can you explain this relation a bit further. Sorry if I am being dim, but I
did not quite understand your comment. Let's say we are on the QE2 which, for
some reason is inclined to be a bit tippy. We notice that the passengers are
gathering on the right side of the ship, which is OK so long as the water is
calm, but would be disastrous if a storm came. We have no particular reason to
believe that a storm is coming, except that half the meteorologists in the
Captain's meteorological committee think that there is. You and I get
together and decide that it would be a good idea for some of us to move over to
the other side of the boat. Now, certainly this is not a CATEGORICAL
imperative. I certainly cannot will that EVERYBODY go over to the other side
of the boat. So what kind of an imperative is it. How is it possible for
everybody to act so that the boat is in balance. This would have everybody
constantly moving from one side of the boat to the other, like one of those
models of neighborhood integration where either the neighborhood is
unintegrated or everybody is unhappy.
How DOES one square Kant with ABM's???
And what did it have to do with Pascal's Wager in the first place?
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: David Breecker
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 8/13/2007 4:31:20 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pascal's Wager and Global Warming
Kant's Categorical Imperative is the answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or
inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a
given circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something
. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement
that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as
an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation: "Act only
according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law." [1]
db
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
All,
The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so far in
this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us relatively
little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.
Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right?
Nicholas S. Thompson
Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ( [EMAIL PROTECTED])
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu: 505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
