A truly sadistic choice

[Feuerhose]

ah come on. the rule is you must choose. you accepted it by writing here

The Offer is option A. Rejecting the offer is option B.
Option A is irrational. Option B is rational.
Everyone ought to choose option B.

No. The entity forces you to either choose suffering for yourself, or a sure death. There is no offer.
The question is whether you want to sacrifice yourself for the happiness of the whole world, or whether you want to sacrifice yourself for the progress of the world.

I can imagine that some people will think that happiness > progress.

I wont say that. The key in this dilemma is the relation between you and "the others". Not the quality or quantity of progress. Suffering for the rest of the world or suffering through them. Are you a hero or a coward. This is an dilemma on a moral level. Not a dilemma on a spiritual level and shure none for me, haha. this could change when you (or I) would have chidren supposedly. Big Topic. Gratz to this thread, i like it.

If you only look at the question like you do, it is of course simple. You or society. You do know that choosing B leads to almost sure death right? You would be hunted by the whole world.
Read the discussion before your posts and it is more complicated than it looks.
I have to agree though, this is a interesting topic indeed.

No. I´d go with oldtrees. Its not shure you die. They probably make you suffer, the longer the bitter. So same like in A but different aproach.

But in the end you will die. With A you won't die but you will suffer in your worst nightmare.

Haha. Yes, I see now what you mean.  Sorry, my fault I haven´t read it carefully enough. Bloodshadow´s construct is kinda unbalanced. It can be reduced to: Do you want to suffer in all eternity or just max. a human lifetime. Of course there is the other side: no suffering all eternity.
To be honest. I´m not shure now.
I think i´m not that afraid of the nightmares. To face it could indeed be a very healing experience (also traumatizing, but hey...you have all eternity, right?).
This reminds me of Satyam Nadeen. He found his peace in the hellhole of an american jail.
But back to the topic.
I think to remove suffering from the world wouldn´t be to its benefit. Instead I´d say A would be the true egoistic choice. Strange.

[Tymalous]

ah come on. the rule is you must choose. you accepted it by writing here

The Offer is option A. Rejecting the offer is option B.
Option A is irrational. Option B is rational.
Everyone ought to choose option B.

No. The entity forces you to either choose suffering for yourself, or a sure death. There is no offer.
The question is whether you want to sacrifice yourself for the happiness of the whole world, or whether you want to sacrifice yourself for the progress of the world.

I can imagine that some people will think that happiness > progress.

I wont say that. The key in this dilemma is the relation between you and "the others". Not the quality or quantity of progress. Suffering for the rest of the world or suffering through them. Are you a hero or a coward. This is an dilemma on a moral level. Not a dilemma on a spiritual level and shure none for me, haha. this could change when you (or I) would have chidren supposedly. Big Topic. Gratz to this thread, i like it.

If you only look at the question like you do, it is of course simple. You or society. You do know that choosing B leads to almost sure death right? You would be hunted by the whole world.
Read the discussion before your posts and it is more complicated than it looks.
I have to agree though, this is a interesting topic indeed.

No. I´d go with oldtrees. Its not shure you die. They probably make you suffer, the longer the bitter. So same like in A but different aproach.

But in the end you will die. With A you won't die but you will suffer in your worst nightmare.

Haha. Yes, I see now what you mean.  Sorry, my fault I haven´t read it carefully enough. Bloodshadow´s construct is kinda unbalanced. It can be reduced to: Do you want to suffer in all eternity or just max. a human lifetime. Of course there is the other side: no suffering all eternity.
To be honest. I´m not shure now.
I think i´m not that afraid of the nightmares. To face it could indeed be a very healing experience (also traumatizing, but hey...you have all eternity, right?).
This reminds me of Satyam Nadeen. He found his peace in the hellhole of an american jail.
But back to the topic.
I think to remove suffering from the world wouldn´t be to its benefit. Instead I´d say A would be the true egoistic choice. Strange.

Yep, it would be, at least imo. I think that A means total happiness for the world, but there would not be any progress in general. So all people would be stuck in this kind of time, with their greed etc. B means that the world gets progress, but the people still have to suffer for it.

So yeah, it is truly sadistic. People would choose A for the benefit of humanity while it has the opposite effect...

[OldTrees]

I am not sure that option A would prohibit holistic progress.
You have agreed that revolutionary change in the cause of the suffering requisite for holistic progress.
You have also agreed that revolutionary change might change society so revolutionary change is no longer needed for holistic progress.
The removal of suffering might or might not coincide with the necessary revolutionary change. (note the entity does not mention their method)
If the removal of suffering did not coincide with the mentioned revolutionary change, then you would expect some people seeking to cause such change resulting in suffering. So either the removal of suffering would not prohibit holistic progress or it would restrict the free will of people.

I am not sure option B would result in a sure death.
I believe that eternal ultimate torture is a worse fate than non existence (death).
Therefore it is rational for me to avoid the nightmare even if it would result in my death.
Since it would be rational for me to make that choice I doubt that many would champion irrationality and try to kill me.

[maverixk]

Hmm, @Tymalous, Progress on a large scale, as you have said you are using the word progress, does not necessarily equal suffering.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of quick progress. Large events that cause much suffering often times do and can cause quick change, but so can happiness or contentment over a longer period of time.

Basically, Progress does not necessitate suffering.

I know this because I've seen large changes in my own society that did not require suffering. Some people may have not liked it, but it did not require suffering.

[OldTrees]

Hmm, @Tymalous, Progress on a large scale, as you have said you are using the word progress, does not necessarily equal suffering.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of quick progress. Large events that cause much suffering often times do and can cause quick change, but so can happiness or contentment over a longer period of time.

Basically, Progress does not necessitate suffering.

I know this because I've seen large changes in my own society that did not require suffering. Some people may have not liked it, but it did not require suffering.

Tymalous seems to be defending the claim that "there exist kinds of progress that require suffering and therefore holistic progress requires suffering"

[maverixk]

Hmm, @Tymalous, Progress on a large scale, as you have said you are using the word progress, does not necessarily equal suffering.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of quick progress. Large events that cause much suffering often times do and can cause quick change, but so can happiness or contentment over a longer period of time.

Basically, Progress does not necessitate suffering.

I know this because I've seen large changes in my own society that did not require suffering. Some people may have not liked it, but it did not require suffering.

Tymalous seems to be defending the claim that "there exist kinds of progress that require suffering and therefore holistic progress requires suffering"

All right, I do recall you two coming to that conclusion, although here:

Yep, it would be, at least imo. I think that A means total happiness for the world, but there would not be any progress in general. So all people would be stuck in this kind of time, with their greed etc. B means that the world gets progress, but the people still have to suffer for it.

So yeah, it is truly sadistic. People would choose A for the benefit of humanity while it has the opposite effect...

it seemed to me that he was using happiness and suffering seemingly interchangeably with no progress and progress respectively.
B does not mean the world gets progress any more than A does.

[OldTrees]

Hmm, @Tymalous, Progress on a large scale, as you have said you are using the word progress, does not necessarily equal suffering.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of quick progress. Large events that cause much suffering often times do and can cause quick change, but so can happiness or contentment over a longer period of time.

Basically, Progress does not necessitate suffering.

I know this because I've seen large changes in my own society that did not require suffering. Some people may have not liked it, but it did not require suffering.

Tymalous seems to be defending the claim that "there exist kinds of progress that require suffering and therefore holistic progress requires suffering"

All right, I do recall you two coming to that conclusion, although here:

Yep, it would be, at least imo. I think that A means total happiness for the world, but there would not be any progress in general. So all people would be stuck in this kind of time, with their greed etc. B means that the world gets progress, but the people still have to suffer for it.

So yeah, it is truly sadistic. People would choose A for the benefit of humanity while it has the opposite effect...

it seemed to me that he was using happiness and suffering seemingly interchangeably with no progress and progress respectively.
B does not mean the world gets progress any more than A does.

try substituting holistic progress wherever he writes progress. If suffering is requisite for a type of progress then, by preventing all suffering, the entity prevents that type of progress. This leads to holistic progress being prevented even while subsets of progress like scientific progress are progressing.

[maverixk]

Ok, I'll concede that.

[Feuerhose]

First of all: sorry for my bad english, its not my native language. So please forgive me if there are some imperfections and allow/help me to correct them if needed.

Ok, after some thinking this is my point of view.

What Bloodshadow did is to formulate a philosophical experiment in which the following terms are given:

A godlike entity gives you two choices. Correct me if i´m wrong: I may assume godlike means this entity has the power to 1. keep you in this situation and 2. make those choices come true.
In the formulation of this experiment is no direct information on if this entity would really realize A.
But 2. ( If you just found out that someone chose the second option, and you now know how to find that person, what will you think and do?)
gives us the advise to assume that one choice was realized.
Still there is no evidence that the entity will realize choice A.
@Bloodshadow: You should probably be more clear about this... Or not, its spicing the discussion

So if I take part in this experiment i come to the point that I don´t know if the entity would make A come true, but B would be realized, right? It enhances the scenario in this way i think.

Furthermore there is the loophole, that there is no information how long I am allowed to wait with my decision. This might be an "Exploit" that grants me the ability to live as long as i want
It is given, that "I" must choose. The entity doesn´t choose for me. I think that I may assume, that the entity will enforce this rules with its might.
So the entity will keep me in a condition that allows me to choose as long I haven´t chosen, right?
Now it gets exciting...
How do i have to communicate my decision? When there is no rule, I choose the way that is most profitable for me, because the entity will grant me this scenario with its power.
For example:
My choice will be passed to the entity from mouth to ear through a row of people of my choice, allowing me to let the whole humanity benefit from this.
Or: I could simply say, that my choice would be passed to the entity on the deathbed of the last human being through the last human being (with some nice modifications to my favour earlier of course ).
The entity would stay that way a caring force in the existence of humankind for those who are about to pass on the information. Evenmore i have as long as i want to create the most valuable plan.


So, correct me if I´m wrong, but the way the rules a worded allows me actually to turn the situation around to my favour. This would be more like a present, right?

@Bloodshadow: So it missed a bit its sadistic aim. I have a feeling you didn´t want this, so perhaps you should really specify some rules here.

Feels like a Betatest, haha.


btw what does reputation mean in this forum? (What does it do? You can press a button to give rep?)
 

[OldTrees]

For example:
My choice will be passed to the entity from mouth to ear through a row of people of my choice, allowing me to let the whole humanity benefit from this.
Or: I could simply say, that my choice would be passed to the entity on the deathbed of the last human being through the last human being (with some nice modifications to my favour earlier of course ).

btw what does reputation mean in this forum? (What does it do? You can press a button to give rep?)

1) After the choice the entity can change their memories based on your choice.
2) By waiting till no human lives you have indeed rendered the decision moot. But since you cannot choose A at that point, didn't you already choose B and communicate that by your delay?

Reputation is a number that reflects how much other people have valued your input/help/thoughts. The more rep one has the more rep they give. You will be able to push the button when you have more posts. (To prevent account spamming for rep)

[Feuerhose]

For example:
My choice will be passed to the entity from mouth to ear through a row of people of my choice, allowing me to let the whole humanity benefit from this.
Or: I could simply say, that my choice would be passed to the entity on the deathbed of the last human being through the last human being (with some nice modifications to my favour earlier of course ).

btw what does reputation mean in this forum? (What does it do? You can press a button to give rep?)

1) After the choice the entity can change their memories based on your choice.
2) By waiting till no human lives you have indeed rendered the decision moot. But since you cannot choose A at that point, didn't you already choose B and communicate that by your delay?

Reputation is a number that reflects how much other people have valued your input/help/thoughts. The more rep one has the more rep they give. You will be able to push the button when you have more posts. (To prevent account spamming for rep)

1. Thanks Oldtrees for the info! I want to give rep for this discussion. How much posts do I need?

2. If I´m allowed to decide how I will communicate my decision, it doesn´t matter at which at which time my decision is made. The only important thing is at which point it is given to the entity. Also as long as I don´t make the choice or the information won´t reach the entity, the memory of the human species wouldn´t be altered to my disadvantage. Everything is more than fine...

[OldTrees]

For example:
My choice will be passed to the entity from mouth to ear through a row of people of my choice, allowing me to let the whole humanity benefit from this.
Or: I could simply say, that my choice would be passed to the entity on the deathbed of the last human being through the last human being (with some nice modifications to my favour earlier of course ).

btw what does reputation mean in this forum? (What does it do? You can press a button to give rep?)

1) After the choice the entity can change their memories based on your choice.
2) By waiting till no human lives you have indeed rendered the decision moot. But since you cannot choose A at that point, didn't you already choose B and communicate that by your delay?

Reputation is a number that reflects how much other people have valued your input/help/thoughts. The more rep one has the more rep they give. You will be able to push the button when you have more posts. (To prevent account spamming for rep)

1. Thanks Oldtrees for the info! I want to give rep for this discussion. How much posts do I need?

2. If I´m allowed to decide how I will communicate my decision, it doesn´t matter at which at which time my decision is made. The only important thing is at which point it is given to the entity. Also as long as I don´t make the choice or the information won´t reach the entity, the memory of the human species wouldn´t be altered to my disadvantage. Everything is more than fine...

1) I don't remember anymore. I think either 100 or 500.
2) If you don't use a means of communicating that is compatible with both choices then the entity has been informed of your choice by the means of communication you picked.