Hello Dr. Bonevac Would it be possible if you could do a video on the Italian philosopher Julius Evola? I want to explore his concept of “magical idealism” but it just seems very inaccessible for me to approach by myself.
If you *know* that they're in shaft A, then you should block shaft A. If you know they are in shaft B, you should block shaft B. If you know they are in shaft A or you know that they are in shaft B, then you should block A or you should block B. But its not true that "we know that they are in shaft A or we know that they are in shaft B". Instead, we know that [they are in shaft A or they are in shaft B]. The knowing predicate does not distribute over the "or".
@@bimsherwood7006 I just watched it to get a general feel, but I don't really want to go through the content again just to flush out the specifics of where the point would be accurate or not, so hope that my silence would not be interpreted as an acceptance or rejection, it's only silence.
@@peterrosqvist2480 when I flip a coin, I know that either the result will be heads or tails. But it is NOT true that I either know that it will be heads, or I know that it will be tails. I don't know until I flip.
Blocking one of them will kill half of them (by the chances). Doing nothing will (probably, he omits) kill one, and you have not directly caused even that. Do nothing. This is a small moral dilemma (tri-lemma?) but no paradox.
Come on, this is simple probability, you maximize the expectation of saved miners. If you block or the other, given that you have no apriori knowledge of where the miners are, the expected number of miners saved is (1/2)*10 = 5. If you do nothing, you save 9. That's the right thing to do.
Well, yes, but the point of the paradox is that there are simple arguments that contradict that correct conclusion. So, the puzzle is, what goes wrong with those arguments?
@@PhiloofAlexandria well I don't see it as a paradox. It's a good example to illustrate the point of how new knowledge should change our thinking (very much in the spirit of Bayesian interpretation of probability), but I don't see any paradox. In terms of logic the video says: (A or B) implies (block A or block B) because A implies block A, and B implies block B. That is of course true according to any common logical inference axioms (which was mentioned in the video). However, I think the next argument, that "We don't know where they are" implies "don't block A" is flawed. Indeed, "we don't know where they are" in this context is synonymous with "A or B". And it is certainly not true that "A or B" implies "not block A" (and "not block B"), when we are only given that "A implies block A" and "B implies block B". I guess this is not the main point of the lecture, but it was definitely interesting to analyze, so thank you for the video and for replying!
Good question-my grandfather called himself Serbian. I think, given the original pronunciation of my last name, that I'm partly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevci.
I have no idea how I found this channel but I'm glad I did!
It's like the "trolley problem"
You are so charming and wonderful lecturer! Your lectures and videos are very inspiring! Do thank you!
Does it scare anyone else that this is the kind of problem that self-driving cars will have hard-coded answers to?
Hello Dr. Bonevac
Would it be possible if you could do a video on the Italian philosopher Julius Evola? I want to explore his concept of “magical idealism” but it just seems very inaccessible for me to approach by myself.
I’ll look into it!
@@PhiloofAlexandriathank you!
Im glad im here again i haven't been getting any notifications 😢
Hi Daniel, do you think the companions in guilt argument is a good argument for moral realism?
If you *know* that they're in shaft A, then you should block shaft A. If you know they are in shaft B, you should block shaft B. If you know they are in shaft A or you know that they are in shaft B, then you should block A or you should block B. But its not true that "we know that they are in shaft A or we know that they are in shaft B". Instead, we know that [they are in shaft A or they are in shaft B]. The knowing predicate does not distribute over the "or".
I think he already agrees with this. We have to see what he's saying as a whole, looking at the video as a whole.
@@Bi0Dr01d yeah, I just thought I'd type out my thought on the problem after hearing the paradox. If my takeaway is wrong, let me know.
@@bimsherwood7006 I just watched it to get a general feel, but I don't really want to go through the content again just to flush out the specifics of where the point would be accurate or not, so hope that my silence would not be interpreted as an acceptance or rejection, it's only silence.
Why can’t the predicate distribute over the “or”? Could you give a counter example?
@@peterrosqvist2480 when I flip a coin, I know that either the result will be heads or tails. But it is NOT true that I either know that it will be heads, or I know that it will be tails. I don't know until I flip.
very good video about deontic logic!
Thanks! Glad you think so!
Blocking one of them will kill half of them (by the chances). Doing nothing will (probably, he omits) kill one, and you have not directly caused even that.
Do nothing.
This is a small moral dilemma (tri-lemma?) but no paradox.
Come on, this is simple probability, you maximize the expectation of saved miners. If you block or the other, given that you have no apriori knowledge of where the miners are, the expected number of miners saved is (1/2)*10 = 5. If you do nothing, you save 9. That's the right thing to do.
Well, yes, but the point of the paradox is that there are simple arguments that contradict that correct conclusion. So, the puzzle is, what goes wrong with those arguments?
@@PhiloofAlexandria well I don't see it as a paradox. It's a good example to illustrate the point of how new knowledge should change our thinking (very much in the spirit of Bayesian interpretation of probability), but I don't see any paradox. In terms of logic the video says:
(A or B) implies (block A or block B) because A implies block A, and B implies block B. That is of course true according to any common logical inference axioms (which was mentioned in the video).
However, I think the next argument, that "We don't know where they are" implies "don't block A" is flawed. Indeed, "we don't know where they are" in this context is synonymous with "A or B". And it is certainly not true that "A or B" implies "not block A" (and "not block B"), when we are only given that "A implies block A" and "B implies block B".
I guess this is not the main point of the lecture, but it was definitely interesting to analyze, so thank you for the video and for replying!
Who is here from cemre
Burdayız
Are you croatian?
Good question-my grandfather called himself Serbian. I think, given the original pronunciation of my last name, that I'm partly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevci.
I am amused at a possible etymology: "Bunjevac could have originated from the verb bunjati (talking nonsense)"!
But it means "bugger, rebel, troublemaker" in Serbo-Croatian.