Imagine the Buddha walking into the tent, the thought reader goes into a recursive infinite loop. The Buddha looks at the Scientist, smiles and says, 'The root of all suffering is desire'.
Think more the Hardest way as how Images are added to web pages using the tag Vs Think more the Hardest way as how Definition list helps to define lists with names
Great video! However, one minor issue is that the predictor can’t be 100% accurate in their prediction otherwise your decision matrix condenses down into a 2 by 1 rather than a 2 by 2 and therefore you should always pick the opaque box. You have to stipulate that it is possible (even if very unlikely) for the predictor to be wrong to allow for the fact that it’s possible that by picking both boxes, you will get a better result than picking just the opaque box which allows causal decision theory to suggest picking both boxes.
1:52 I flip a coin. Heads, I take both boxes. Tails, I take the one box. Since the machine wouldn't be able to tell which box I was choosing, I'd have a 50/50 shot of getting a million dollars.
Imo the machine is scanning what you would have done before you had that information about the catch. If it's scanning what you would do after that information, your decision comes true no matter what, so might as well have a million. Flipping a coin doesn't affect it really, because the choice is binary and you weren't going to flip a coin if you didn't know about the catch. So it still knows what you would have done, unless you go around flipping coins for every important choice even when there is no catch, in which case the machine retires in shame and now you live in the carvinval tent forever.
@@CaptainWumbo That's just it. *I* am not making the choice at all. I'm allowing a random event to make the choice. Since neither I nor the AI know what will happen the AI can't possibly know what I would pick.
@@SlimThrull sure but if you just pick box B then you have 100% chance of making a million. In your scheme, if the AI can't determine your action and just decided randomly then it still has a 50 percent chance of not putting in the million dollars.
Parfit's Hitchhiker suggests to me that for rational beings in real life the evolution of trust and reprocity is vital, also the social thing called honour. This avoids the tragedy of rationality in real life by such rational agents committing to an agreement. Sticking to the agreement increases your social standing via reliability, and that improves your future survival.
On one hand I understand the rationalists’ views that generate these thought experiments & solutions, but on the other hand I die a little bit inside each time I encounter strategy, calculus & statistics replacing human (animal) felt intuition & evolved virtues. I don’t like the guy for conditioning my safety on being payed $1000 but once I promise to give him the money, even if I’m not actually obligated in any way to give him, I’d keep to my promise. I’d hold a pretty strong conviction that once arrived into town I’d indeed stick to my promise. Of course, I’m not insensitive to circumstances, it could be that I see someone in great suffering & I decide that since it’s in my proximity I can’t ignore their plight and divert the money. In my case there wouldn’t be a calculus because I’m not smart enough to put numbers on particular situations, nor identify a function fit to give out answers relevant to ethical behavior. All I have is felt intuition & some (more or less adequate) abstract reasoning. But the fact that I hold feelings towards those around me & that they in turn hold feelings towards me is important. In a world where everyone around me engages in perfect abstract calculations with respect to their behavior towards me, thus giving me fantastic benefits, I’d still miss the felt way of connecting. There’s an old romanian movie where a little kid is raised by a robot on board a spaceship, and the robot does everything right when it comes to education but when I rewatched it recently it became so clear to me that such a tin can robot, however knowledgeable & intelligent, wouldn’t be able to raise a human (an expressive humanoid robot could do it tho). Humans might behave irrationally and prejudice each other by making stupid decisions but they need emotional rapport. As we offload decisions to cold calculus we’ll lose crucial aspects of our humanity. Joscha Bach says AGI "won’t have any _need_ for a sense of humor" because humor is a particular type of mismatch in evidence vs prediction which generates error cascades at multiple levels, which also implies a temporary loss of agency. 😞 Normies have created so much suffering through their irrationality, and autists have brought so much progress through their rationality. But like all things that turn mainstream, autistic rationality has started showing its ugly (I’d even say insane) side.
Thinking about this problem convinced me to vote. For years, causal decision making lead me to skip voting because the chance of my vote making a difference is approximately zero. But this kind of reasoning leads to a world where a large number of intelligent rational people don't vote, which I suspect does make a difference. I would prefer to live in a world where intelligent rational people vote, so now I act accordingly.
That is the best answer I've seen. The logical follow-up is to tell others about it. Causal decision making dictates that it doesn't make a difference, so why would you. But it's important that people know where it fails.
Actually, I think people just use that as an excuse, and the real reason they don't vote is that they used to put voters in the jury duty pool. But now they use I think DMV records and people haven't updated their reasoning.
I vote when I like the choice. In the case of Hillary vs Trump, I did not vote in order to show that I don't think either choice was good. That is also a rational choice: as South Park joked, choosing between a turd sandwich and a total douche...
In the other hand, this might convince someone not to vote, since it’s because of idiots like us that we get the same crooks in there every four years!
Think more the hardest way as *Television is a medium people can rely on* Vs Think more the hardest way as how *Television not only strengthens one's belief about the events being telecast on it, but also attracts masses much more than print or radio*
Honestly the rational act vs rational character makes a lot of sense. One seems to tackle choices the moment maximizing in the moment while one is fixed and fated to make choices ahead of time to maximize expected output overall.
The Newcomb problem with a predictor which is 90% accurate is equivalent to a problem where there is a 90% probability that an evil time-traveler goes back to change the payout of the unknown box. A rational actor who knows there’s a 90% chance they will be punished for greed by an evil time traveler will choose to play non-greedily. This is also similar to the class of iterative game problems which is different from the class of single game problems. Humans as social creatures are geared toward acting optimally/rationally in iterative game problems, which may look irrational under the lens of a single game. A famous example is a game with 2 players and $20. Each player can vote to split or vote to steal. If they vote to split, they each get $10. If one votes to steal, he gets $20 and the other gets $0. If both vote to steal, then both get $0. A rational player will always choose to steal because it either increases his reward (from $10 to $20 if the other player chooses to split), or keeps his reward the same (stays at $0 if the other player chooses to steal). Now, here’s the interesting part: the game gets an additional “punish” action, where any player who is stolen from can pay out of his own pocket $50 to penalize the other player $200. No rational actor would ever choose to punish in such a way because they would lose $50, and a rational actor only looks selfishly at his own interest, not in whether others are rewarded or punished. However, in iterative game theory, where you will again and again play with that same actor, or with other actors in his clan who might learn from his experiences, it’s important to reward or punish them to train their behavior. So for $50 cost you train the other player (punishing him $200, which will re-weight his neural network) to make him act fairly in future games and build your reputation as someone who won’t tolerate unfair treatment. This is the element often missing in game theory: adding an option to rewrite the opponent’s neural network for future games. Hustlers are very good at this, they will intentionally lose a game of billiards over a bet of $20, and then ask for a $100 game, hoping you think they stink, when really they’re hustling you and will certainly win. Poker is very similar as well, as you can train your opponents over the course of many hands. Iterative games are way more complicated than single games. And games with evil time-travelers are just iterative games in disguise. Instead of time-traveling, the predictor could merely observe how you played past games which builds up your reputation for being either greedy or not. And then you play a million games, each time under amnesia, but only one is with real money but you don’t know which. And the predictor in each game has memory of how you played all the past ones.
Don't you mean the computer having 90% accuracy would be equivalent to an evil time travel changing the box 10% of the time, not 90%? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
You have just become one of my favourite teachers on RUclips. Thankyou, for being you, for simply doing what you do, and for it happening to be exceptional in quality. Good work.
The perfect hitchhiker paradox is also based on belief in Contra Causal free will. The mistake is to hold the past fixed when considering both options.
Think more the wisest way as *Simplicity and Complexity* in *Communication Dynamics* Vs Think more the wisest way as why we are often told *'keep it simple' to avoid unnecessary complications in the message we want to communicate*
It seems to me that the problem is improperly defined. The two box option is a red herring and meaningless. You are choosing between the $1000 and the $1M and your probabilityof getting the $1M is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the scanning machine. So the real problem can be simplified to "is the machine accurate?" If the machine is 100% accurate then always choose $1M because the scanning machine can predict what you will choose and will predict you will choose $1M. If it is not 100% accurate then take it's accuracy and measure it against your personal risk tolerance and choose that way.
Adam White Assume for the moment that the machine is 100% accurate. While we agree that we should one-box (as if we do we get 1M assuming 100% accuracy), there are decision theories that tell us not to because they focus more on what you can effect in the future by the decisions you make, and, in this case, they reason there can be no effect on future outcomes given that the money is already in the box (or not), so you should take both. So you are entirely wrong. It doesn't solely depend on the accuracy of the scanning machine or oracle. It entirely depends on the decision theory the decision maker holds at the time of the oracles prediction. It is a meta game. Hold a decision theory that leads you to two-box, and you get $1000, hold a decision theory that leads you to one-box and you get 1M.
+Cam Spiers Your argument here is changing the meaning of accuracy. You are essentially assuming the scanning machine is incapable of predicting the existence of the meta game. That, to me, does not represent 100% accuracy. Meta layers are still pieces of information. If the scanning machine does not have access to these pieces of information then it is not 100% accurate. It all comes down to the claim that the machine does what people say it does, make a perfect scan and a perfect prediction. If perfect prediction does not mean what it seems it should mean, then the paradox is a useless puzzle. It's like playing a game of chess where your opponent has a pet eagle that will steal your pieces at random.
Cam Spiers: If any decision theory would suggest that I choose both boxes, than that decision theory is simply an irrational one in this context to work from, so the rational person wouldn't work from it, thus guaranteeing them $1,000,000. After you leave the tent, go back to considering it as an option if you want, but while inside, those are objectively suboptimal choices to consider.
William Ward because that’s what the thought experiment is, you are meant to suspend your disbelief and just assume the machine is accurate. It’s the point of the problema
I don't remember if Dan Dennett covered this one in Intuition Pumps, but he did such a great job deconstructing similar thought experiments that I'd be curious what he would have to say about it.
Think more the wisest way as how *Staying in Control* is a must in *Communication Dynamics* Vs Think more the wisest way as the key to handling the dynamics involved *Be as prepared as we can before we start; as communication, once started, cannot easily be stopped*
Think more the wisest way in a world where there are so many opinions or views from different kinds of people, which may be a line of quotation from Philosopher, a sentence of paraphrasing from Doctor, a sweet stanza lyrical poem from a Teacher, a meaningful word with sudden Exclamation or apostrophe or question mark from an engineer etc Vs Think more the wisest way why it's not good to just agree without understanding the context randomly
Parfit's Hitchhiker reminds me of that scene in the Granite State episode of Breaking Bad when Walter asks if the cleaner (I don't think he was ever given a name, but he was played by Robert Forster) if he could trust him to get what was left of his fortune to his kids, and Forster says: "Would you believe me if I said I would?" Here are two criminals (selfish-agents) who have been motivated in their lives of crime by a ruthless rationality. In Walt's case, he initially is motivated by a desire to help his family, but when we see him turn down a chance to work for Grey Matter, he turns it down out of overweening pride. Forster has a front business and an underground business in 'disappearing' criminals with false identities. Both work in cash, with no expectations of trust beyond that of necessity and that which can be backed up by violence. The only way Walt would have been able to persuade Forster to pay would have required muscle that Forster already knows he doesn't have. Hence Walt's plan to drive back to New Mexico and put the screws to his old partners in Grey Matter is brilliant, and takes full advantage of their imperfect information, and effete gullibility.
Clever. Even if the reliable predictor described in the experiment predicts that you will make that decision, it's been described as reliable predictor of choice not a reliable predictor of true randomness so will not be able to predict the coin toss. Defeats the thought experiment by changing it from a set dichotomy of choice, sure, but it doesn't really address the crux of the problem - which is to say, the thought experiment lays out an illustration of a problem: that of two equally valid, equally rational but diametrically opposed decisions with no rational way of determining which one to take in a given instance. Your 'solution' doesn't really solve that problem, so much as avoid addressing it by giving up on rationality altogether in favour of random chance.
@@smockboy I disagree. Flipping the coin produces the highest expected payout consistent with rational action. There ether is $1 million in the box or there is not. Therefore, choosing both boxes dominates choosing only one. However, if we choose both the expected payout is only $100. Choosing only one has an expected payout of $1000000, but that's not a rational choice. Randomising, though, has an expected payout $250100, because we don't know whether the second box will contain money if we do something other than choose.
@@SylviusTheMad Not only is this the right answer and a rational answer, it is a practical answer, in that it forms the basis for game-theory optimal mixed strategies in poker and other games where one player is trying to guess what the other player will do.
@@fenzelian One of the things I don’t particularly like about these sort of thought experiments is that supposedly it shouldn’t matter whether in the guaranteed box there’s $1 of $100 or $1000 of $100,000 if the other box has $1 million. But it very much does, and whether a person takes guaranteed money is highly dependent on what their needs are. “Is this enough to change my life?” is probably the most important single factor that goes into what you’re going to choose, and it seems completely irrational not to consider how important that is. If you’re rich enough, it seems nice and logical to get $1,000 for nothing. But the poorer you are, the more you know that $1,000 will disappear to any number of uncontrollable costs and the only thing that can get you out the hole you’re in is a unbroken string of decades of good luck or else a massive amount of wealth. “But doesn’t a poor person need $1000 more?” They need many thousands more, and their income will fluctuate wildly regardless, so they understand their circumstances perfectly.
Think more the quickest way as another *Barriers of Effectiveness* which is *Organisational* Vs Think more the wisest way as how *Most organisations are full of real and potential problems which form barriers to any attempt at affective communication*
Think more the hardest way as long Data type of Primitive Vs Think more the hardest way as (It is a 64-bit signed two's complement integer. It's minimum value is -9,223,372,036,854,775,808 and maximum value is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807.)
If you're being told that selecting the single box would give 1 million dollars, then that should be included as a signal in the causal decision theory and thus the opaque box becomes the only rational choice. Any other choice where you don't have this information then the normal decision theory happens. In a way, in all situations there can only be one rational choice, or am I missing something?
Mike Sampat but assuming that the machine has unlimited capabilities, if you manage to land in the decision to take only one box, you will have a million dollars. If not, you will have a thousand. A rational person would chose only one box. Again, assuming they believe the scientist and the machine is totally accurate.
coax, unless I misunderstand the paradox, I would always choose the opaque box. I know myself well enough that even before I met the scientist and saw her two boxes, given the circumstances, I would take the one box. UNLESS you don't know about the brain scan.
Mike Sampat, assuming that the scanner can analyze your intentions/plans, your intention/plan to take both boxes determines that you will only get $1000.
You were told the machine would put the million dollars in the opaque box _after_ you entered the room. You can pick the opaque box but that doesn't mean you were planning on doing so when you walked in the room. To be able to walk out with a million dollars you'd have to be 100% certain that that's what you were going to do before being told about the mind reading machine. If you don't have that information, then the whole mind reading machine thing is just noise, and, from the information _you actually have_ you will walk away with money 100% of the time by taking both boxes.
My 14yr old: “Get your friends who went to the carnival with you to try the different options and split the proceeds” which highlights the biggest flaw with Newcomb’s problem: who goes to a carnival on their own?
If you have four friends, have the first two go in for the million. If the box fails twice, the next two go for the two boxes, and you all come out $400 better off. If the first two succeed, the last two follow suit, and all of you win.
This seems contrived somehow. The first problem relies on determinism. The second demands that the hitchhiker is sociopathic and the other guy it telepathic and that there is no way of creating an incentive for the hitchhiker to hold his end of the bargain. In such a situation the offer would never be made to the hitchhiker in the first place. I think that is the flaw in both cases actually. In the first problem you are effectively removing choice and then asking someone to make a choice. It's a phoney problem.
Think more the hardest way as Fifth research stage of making a documentary is *The Branches of the issue* Vs Think more the Hardest Way as Sixth research stage of making a documentary is *Challanges* which on the other hand an issue when explored in a film, is incompleted when there is nothing introduced that challanges it
Think more the hardest way with why the attribute of the tag is used to set the background color of HTML document.. Vs Think more the hardest way as how #FF0000 is a color code of Red, #0000FF of Blue, #ADD8E6 of light blue, #FFFF00 of Yellow, #FF00FF of Magenta, #808080 of Grey, #FFA500 of Orange, #800000 of Maroon, #808000 of Olive
This is at the root of a crazy theory of mine: The evolutionary basis of romantic love is to allow rational actors to credibly commit to support each other in times of hardship. Committing to support each other through sickness and hardship is a rational, beneficial arrangement for both parties, but if either party does end up requiring more support than they can give in return the rational decision would be for the more capable party to abandon the relationship. But, if you can both demonstrate an irrational, innate connection that transcends rationality, then you can credibly enter into a contract that has some chance of surviving even if one person would be better served by leaving. Or to put it another way, love is irrational. But because of love we can credibly commit to support each other in irrational ways, which is a better state of the world than purely rational actors can achieve.
the assumption "if either party does end up requiring more support than they can give in return the rational decision would be for the more capable party to abandon the relationship" is not necessarily valid or at least is ill-defined. There many rational reasons for partnering up, including external, societal factors that go beyond what both parties can exchange. Also a lot of the benefits of partnering comes from yourself, your own body, psychology and organizational advantage: for example, if your partner takes more than they give, you can think of them in a way analogous to a secretary, someone you pay for a service that's useful to you. Not to mention that balance is impossible due to randomness. There's a cost to abandon a partner and seek another. Many times this cost can be steep, so this can also be a factor lessening the value of that decision.
@@whirled_peas This itself is an irrational desire relative to only working for your own benefit within your life; however, given that reproduction is a terminal goal for enough people, the rationality of it cannot be measured. Having children is basically a worse repeat of the Parfit paradox if you want the children to support you later in life (as a different terminal goal if reproduction is not your terminal goal) because a child could not credibly commit to something that is against their greedy self interest to leave you out to dry when they haven’t been born yet.
Think more the hardest way as *•A Sorry sight:* which is a regrettable and unwelcome aspect or feature. Vs Think more the hardest way as *•Acid test:* which is a sure test, given an incontestable result
Think *TILT* which is the movement of camera to angle up or angle down in à continuous movement Vs Think *SFX* which is an abbreviation for sound effects,
+Emerson White I could see why... put such an apparatus at strategic places, and the powers that be wouldn't face a threat ever.. They'd know who'd oppose them and can deal with them easily... if they're clever about it.
Julia Galef How does that help? It won't change what's in the box. Even if the predictor had a perfect record up to that point it won't change what's in the box. It's not a matter of probability either. Considering anything else is magical thinking. There is no evidence that leaving the clear box behind will put money in the other box. The "rational character" is misnamed. It's being applied to include someone who is confused in this situation and behaves irrationally. The should be called "people who are frequently rational but fall apart in intellectually challenging situations".
Somebody gave a thumbs up on my response so I thought it best to update my thinking on this. Following Julia's advice in a subsequent video of hers I began to rethink the situation along other lines. A possible situation is that a person might walk out with both boxes getting only the $10,000 but now knowing the situation come back another day with the following strategy. In the interim they could have their brain hard wired to only take the opaque box. This ensures that the scanner will detect what will happen and so put the $1,000,000 into the opaque box. That being done when they walk out with that box they will get the million dollars. So what is the best strategy? Decide to take both boxes or just the opaque one. The game is the same in both cases but the conditions of the player have changed. ( It need not be the same player, the strategy will apply to anyone who knows the with enough time to pre-commit in this manner. ) One radical difference is is that when confronted with the two boxes the subject no longer has a choice as to what they will do. The aspect of choice was removed before they walked into the tent. At this point they can't make a rational choice or an irrational choice. They may feel like they are making a choice , it may look to others like a choice is being made but that is no longer possible. If they made a choice then it was when they decided to have their brain hard wired to force them to take only the opaque box. And this gets to the core of the situation. The description of the situation posits the possibility of a choice being made and predictability of what that choice will be. In any situation where predictability applies is the concept of a choice within that situation possible? Given some closed system where what will happen over the next ten minutes can be correctly predicted can anything within that system be properly said to make any choices at all? They may feel like they are making a choice but if their choice is predetermined it isn't a choice. The problem gets it force from this. It posits a contradiction. choice being made in a system with prediction. It is a well hidden but definitely there. In such situations people will rely on their presuppositions and unknowingly apply those. Being a contradiction the rule of explosion applies and any conclusion can be reached. Thanks to Julia for the encouragement to try a variety of view points in analysing a situation.
Which is much worse than the 100% chance of getting $1,000,000 by simply grabbing the opaque box only. So... why? The only advantage would be getting that extra little $1,000 out of your strategy. But +50% chance for a thousand is way way not worth the LOSS of a 50% chance at a million (going from 100% to 50%). Also, no coin or other random factor is mentioned as being available in the problem, so it'd be cheating anyway, but more importantly, it's worse than one of your main, normal options.
I'm going with the schrödingers approach: the machine basically predicts the future, so i can influece the decision of the machine by my actions in the future So it follows, that the contents of the box are not yet decided until i make my decision. So the rational thing to do is to pick the decision which gives me the most money If you had two buttons, one gives you both boxes, with the opaque one empty, while the other button first fills the box with money, and then gives it to you, it would be clear what to do. I think its the same situation. Dont look at causality in the normal way, since the machines ability to predict the future changes the causality of the situation
Exactly, i wanted to comment just that. The paradox stems from the fact that there's an agent that can predict the future, not due to rationality. It's almost like a grandfather's paradox but in reverse. Any situation that includes time travel or predicting the future almost always leads to contradictions.
That's not right and she adresses the objection in the video. You don't need perfect prediction of the future, even a very imperfect prediction will do. And the prediction is based purely on observed correlations, there is no retrocausality. For example, I don't need a magical machine to predict that if I ask a random child in the street to jump three times for no resaon, most of them will do it but most adults will just ignore me. To make this prediction I used a really crappy brainscan, my eyes. If you had access to much more sophisticated tools, you could make better predictions, but there is no fundamental difference.
@@oumdead9542 It doesn’t need to predict the future in order to act as though it is predicting the future; ergo you can act as though it predicts the future in order to get the most money.
Think more the Hardest way as how I The Proletkult's director, Vsevolod Meyerhold, became a big influence on Eisenstein. Vs Think more the Hardest way as how Eisenstein furthered Muyerhold's theory with his own ''montage of attractions"
Think more the hardest way as Nested list that is formed by combining multiple lists within a single list... Vs Think more the hardest way as any type of list-ordered, unordered or definition can be nested
I have a solution. This paradox is a lot like the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma, it is always rational to defect in a given round. However, when you play multiple rounds, it's usually rational to cooperate. Thus, if you put some weight on future rounds, it can be rational to take the opaque box. If you take only the opaque box now, that means you are the type of person who could get a million dollars in the future. This also applies across game types. For example, if you take the opaque box now, you are more likely to be the sort of person who'd pay $1000 for a ride to town. Thus, if you treat this paradox as merely a single round in the game, it is rational to take only the opaque box. Additionally, you can prepare for this paradox by making this decision any time it comes up in everyday life.
Then add to the problem whatever method of proof you would like. Say they let you watch as many people as you like do the same thing. Say they let you do it yourself and open one or both boxes as many times as you like (but not actually getting to keep the money at the end) before you choose for real. Then what do you do?
@@sykes1024 There's no quandary there. My post was not about prescribing whether or not a person ought to believe them, but only that the choice they make will depend solely on that. You provided a scenario in which a person could confidently believe that they will get $1M if they take the opaque box only. So of course, in that case, they should take the opaque box. That follows what I said, not disproves it.
@@SFDestiny She understands it quite clearly. The problem is in the question's set up, not her comprehension. The fact that you seem to believe that she doesn't comprehend the material, while giving a thorough and reasoned explanation makes evident either a) your own lack of comprehension or b) that you didn't pay attention/actually watch through.
Think more the hardest way as History of Documentary Films content after Post production content.. Vs Think more the Hardest way as how the genre 'Documemtary films" has made its presence felt right from the beginning of film histoty
Think more the hardest way as how in the same 1875, famous Historian *William Jones* published the *Asiatic Miscellany* and how this journal got its name changed to *Asiatic Miscellany and Bengal Register* in 1787. Vs Think more the hardest way *as Calcutta was the centre of major political and businesses activities it has a large number of learned people and intelligentsia, as most of the newspapers in early days were published from here* .
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible like how wise I managed to cover up the portion I need to personally accomplish, though how good or bad it is... Vs Think more the Hardest way it's the only duty of how I specifically sacrificed to survive for
Think more the hardest way as how Magazines that are available in internet are known as Online magazines* and how they shared common features with blogs and also with online newspapers and how *They are a part of the world wide web which we called as "Webzines"* . Vs Think more the hardest way as how *the knowledge and information in magazine never exhausts with the change of time* .
Think more the Hardest way as how, one the General outline of the story is ready, the script is made using a 2-column script temple Vs Think more the Hardest way as why sound is as important as the image
Think more the Hardest way with Guidelines to writing a proper Paraphrase... Vs Think more the Hardest way as why there are certain things that a writer must always keep in mind, when quoting things from other texts in paraphrase style, in order to be clear and to avoid plagiarism as well
Think more the Hardest way as *Feedback* a factor where the reaction or processes initiated by the receivers of messages Vs Think more the hardest way as *Noise* the 6th factor that involves in communication process where the messages always travel in the channels that are having many disturbances
Think more if I have a clean mind, with clean heart.. Vs Think more no matter how tougher the temptations are, I may go through them but never attached to them
Think more the hardest way since the last comment 60+ minutes ago, a moment after I helped sweeping the 75% of house compound floor, less with the concentratedly focussing attitude that I didn't pay to what I hear and what I see, though I was framely framed to react and respond with every minutely details of deep rationality focussing... Vs Think more the hardest way as wise as how I have to work on even I need to take rest and refresh myself
Think more the wisest way with the reflection of *Grapevine* metaphorically and how *The more outrageous the 'story' the sweeter it tastes* Vs Think more the wisest way as how *The Grapevine exists in every organisation, in the heart and mind of every individual*
Think more the hardest way as v is for Vertical tab Vs Think more the hardest way as how in C++ cin and cout are used to perform input and output operations in sequential media, such as the screen or the keyboard..
Hmmm...the evidential decision here is only rational if you believe retrocausality is possible, right? Once I see the boxes, the prediction has been made, and my decision could only affect what's in the opaque box if there is some retrocausal mechanism (like using a time machine to make the prediction). If you take the problem in complete isolation, then sure, the evidence seems to suggest that my decision could be retrocausal. But in reality I would approach the problem with all of my knowledge of the world thus far, including the fact that I haven't seen any compelling evidence that retrocausality is possible, hence my decision is very unlikely to affect the outcome.
Think more the quickest Intuitively way as *How do we communicate with groups or teams within our area of responsibility?* Vs Think more the quickest Intuitively way *when meeting the full group/team face to face, meeting the coordinator or leader, through written communication normally, when reports and presentations are made*
Think more the hardest way as wise as how I know, If I'm going to sleep without completing the today's portion tasks, this just shows I take my responsibility lightly... Vs Think more just as wise as how I'm just stucked with unending measurement of doubts that I can still sense you're not with me
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how *Beekeepers* feel alive, when they placed the packed bottles with a seal on top of them, being displayed in one of the trade fair after knowing that bee keeping process isn't an easy job... Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how being Mindfulness means being Dedicated to any assigned job until we see the results
Think more as wise as possible when you know that I'm always looking for good in you... Vs Think more it doesn't mean I always have to pleasuring alone imagerily, but it's about of how I didn't wanted you to mistake of lecturing me repeatedly but misses your pleasuring need in reality
Interesty. I've been listening to a lot of Norse mythology, and it seems as if they celebrated the rational yet selfish act, I'm thinking about the story of The Master Builder, but there are lots of stories where people are unfairly tricked and conned for the benefit of the hero without any shame or repercussions. I wonder if this speaks to that cultures way of thinking about rationality?
Think more the Hardest way with deducted seconds that I have to automatically waste while responding to those who distractedly manage to confuse or doubt me whenever I was in a full mood of Specifically Focus with the stuff I repeatedly put into practice intuitively for the sake of goodness for all on the other hand. Vs Think more the Hardest way as M is for Move, N is for Narrative
Two boxing is based on belief in contra causal free will. It's not true that what's in the box is fixed. If you're going to two box the past would have been different than if you're going to one box. And that resolves the paradox and I dare say is correct.
Think more the hardest way as why news is one of the most important programmes on television, the hardest way as why the writers of news stories are always under pressure Vs Think more the hardest way as why Television News writing's only adde element is visuals, and how inspite of almost the same writing pattern, the style of presenting news on Television differs from other mode of communication
What if you enter the room with the intention of rolling a dice to determine which decision you will make. This nullifies the ability of the scanner to read you Also why both boxes. It would be better if you can only take one box.
Think more the hardest way but why in the end, I feel like I'm making myself embarrass if I pretend like staying away from you, no matter how much I had so much complaining about you... Vs Think more as wise as how I understand your limits as a woman, and what's that making me to just come close towards you and say nothing but pretend like I'm sorry, I had so much attitude especially when I'm fed-up with the baits I was framed to freely have fun and enjoy
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how introducing *Municipality* in a society has helped shaping the community to be legally free from dumping, garbaging, dirtying, polluting etc the surrounding etc Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how *News* thriving the people's mindset on being informed as viewer, reader, writer etc and the legal way of how an informed individual can be an influence to his/her people surrounded him/her such as his family, relatives, neighbours, friends, Colleagues strangers, etc
If we consider the scientist's prediction to be reliably accurate, this factor by itself should make us choose the opaque box, no? If we choose both boxes hoping to get the greatest sum possible, we are basically hoping the scientist was wrong in her prediction, which would be highly unlikely in this scenario. It would be rational to choose both boxes only if we really, really desire a non-zero sum of money and don't want to bet on any odds whatsoever. Otherwise, go for the opaque box without question! I don't see any "tragedy of rationality" here.
Think more the hardest way with why the Head section contain information about the HTML document.. Vs Think more the hardest way with why the Body section contain the tags and contents that define the body of the document
Think more the quickest intuitively way since the last comment, 1260+ seconds ago with respect to an unpeaceful mood when someone argued about, as I came upon reminding him about the hired vehicle today which unintentionally at a moment that I needed it, the same person who asked for it needed it at the same time.. VS Think more the quickest intuitively way deep as wise as one thing that I'm tired of being in the level that anyone can easily control me based on how sincere am I to them, not knowing how much hidden efforts I managed to just make them that I respect their priorities on their level of credibility, seniority, ability etc... the quickest intuitively way deep as wise as how I know choosing my way to live accordingly based on the discipline efforts that I repeatedly intuited, it doesn't mean I have to act like I don't know once I come across under anybody else's policies
Idk, as long as we don't assume (or have) the probabilities for any of the claims to be right or wrong, we can't make a rationale decision. If we do, what is the problem besides that the probabilities can be wrong?
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how I find its impossible to get a photographic terms that start with letter I even if googled... Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as J is for *Joint Photographic Expert Group(JPEG)* again where it is the standard method of image data compression used to reduce the file size of digital images
Think more the hardest way as how Ideal translation should be *Accurate* I e, it should reproduce the source text as accurately as possible Vs Think more the hardest way as how the translation should be *Natural* i.e using natural forms of the receptor Language in a way that is appropriate to the kind of text being translated.
Think more as how *Kinoautomat* is known as Black comedy, opening with a flash-forward to a scene in which Petr Novak's apartment is in flames Vs Think more the Hardest way as how the version presented in Montreal had been dubbed into English in London, ans was subtitled *One man and his House*
Think more the hardest way when I'm wise enough to know that even in the midst of hardest situation that I may face alone... Vs Think more the hardest way to not be fool by unusual myths of dreaming while I sleep at night
Think more the Hardest way with there's a way to get rid off of what's that deduct my day through what I believed I could do something.. Vs Think more just as wise as how I rationalised my level of satisfaction when I learnt how to be stable and content with what I have
Think more the hardest way since the last comment, somewhere between 10800-14400 seconds ago... Vs Think more the hardest way how not to always wasted my time of stuffs that aren't not much meaningful at all, like laughing at made-up random videos on Facebook, Instagram although at some point of times the more we tend to enjoy watching them, the more I realised I've just wasted my time on what I specifically focussed on and how I feel this just turned me as a person to not take serious on stuff that I repeatedly maintain the habit of being mature enough with self discipline goal
Think more with these steps 🧍🏻♂️-🧍🏻♀️: at time when being single 👩🏻🤝👨🏾: At time before relationship 👩❤️👨: During in relationship 👩❤️💋👨: When Falling in love between one another 👰🏼🤵🏻♂️: Agreeing for Marriage 🤰🏻🙋🏻♂️: 9 months after marriage 👨👩👦: 2 years after marriage 👨👩👧👦: 4 years after marriage 👴🏻👨🏻👩🏻👵🏻: 25 years after marriage ⚰️⚰️: After having grandkids 🪦🪦: This is life, but not 🌋 everytime alone in secret place Vs Think more as hard as why I can't be fool even if I knew where I am wrong at
Think more the Hardest way as why we have to write with utmost care keeping in mind the people who are going to receive the message... Vs Think more the Hardest way as how these days, Mass communication too has been bifurcated into many kinds for the purpose of effective communication
Think more the Hardest way since the last comment, 3600+ seconds ago.. Vs Think *DOLLY* a similar shot like track but it moves towards or away from the subject. The hardest way as how the effect is the size getting larger and smaller
Think more the hardest way with why Binary Arithmetic performed the same way as we perform addition with decimal numbers.. Vs Think more the hardest way with why 100+101=10 0 1 in Binary Arithmetic
Think more the Hardest way as why if we go to watch a movie at the theatre, we are always forced to view the list of people involved in the production process, such as producer, co-producer, line producer etc Vs Think more the Hardest way as hoelw generally a producer is a person who first initiated the idea for the film and/or found the original novel or screenplay or treatment and/or found the director and actors who would agree to do the film and/or headed up the effort to sell the idea to financiers and distributors and generally herded the movie through to completion.
Think more the quickest intuitively way since the last comment, somewhere between 57600-61200 seconds ago again with respect to what that's makes me focussing on specifically, although portion of my day that I wasted since the moment I get up from bed goes with the flow like remembering myself to adjust my morning routine before or after my first meal of a day. Refrain my own mind with usual newday's update, being able to put some good efforts from my side as a teacher to students with respect to scheduled time table of a day, knowing how my words or sentences are put into frame while having a conversation with others orally. A relief in mind with a hope of something excellent from better that I expected from Mechanical point of view updation... VS Think more the quickest intuitively way as wise as remaining 24540 seconds of Thursday here as well as remaining 57540 seconds of Thursday there with respect to same rule that I shouldn't forget about on why I shouldn't be fool way always anyway no matter what
Think more the hardest way as how data in a cell can be alligned as per use's allignment Vs Think more the hardest way but why not the variety of options or formulas
Think more the hardest way as Marginheight attribute of Frame tag Vs Think more the hardest way as how it specifies the space to be left between the frame's content s at its top and bottom margins
Think more to fool not by two additional helpers while I cleaned the roadside wall with mother... Vs Think more to fool not by how I was framed like I had links with them too
Think more as how the Garage mechanic appreciated an honest *car repairer* whom he employed, for not taking any additional charge with money he give to him to buy repairment equipments unlike the other car repairers who doesn't do the same as honest car repairer... Vs Think more as honest that we can figure here is about caring of the little things in detail even every one are bothered about stuffs with big amount of money
Think more the hardest way as why communication is one of the basic need and pre-requisite for human existence.. Vs Think more the hardest way as why information is an integral part of human existence and how human beings have a brain and five sensory perceptions that they use to collect and process information...
"OK murderously greedy samaritan, I'll take the ride and give you your blood money. But it's in a clear box in a tent in a carnival."
Hahaha
This is the funniest shit I’ve read in a while. Thank you
@@thatn_ggajandro3197 in that case it's the most productive youtube comment I've left in a while, so thank you
Perfection!
This joke is on another level hahaha
me wanting 1,000$ and two boxes for my cats : *its free real-estate*
but imagine all the stuff that comes in boxes you could get with 1M
Imagine the Buddha walking into the tent, the thought reader goes into a recursive infinite loop. The Buddha looks at the Scientist, smiles and says, 'The root of all suffering is desire'.
You funny guy
TRUTH
Nice!
Preach
Think more the Hardest way as how Images are added to web pages using the tag
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how Definition list helps to define lists with names
Great video!
However, one minor issue is that the predictor can’t be 100% accurate in their prediction otherwise your decision matrix condenses down into a 2 by 1 rather than a 2 by 2 and therefore you should always pick the opaque box.
You have to stipulate that it is possible (even if very unlikely) for the predictor to be wrong to allow for the fact that it’s possible that by picking both boxes, you will get a better result than picking just the opaque box which allows causal decision theory to suggest picking both boxes.
1:52 I flip a coin. Heads, I take both boxes. Tails, I take the one box. Since the machine wouldn't be able to tell which box I was choosing, I'd have a 50/50 shot of getting a million dollars.
Imo the machine is scanning what you would have done before you had that information about the catch. If it's scanning what you would do after that information, your decision comes true no matter what, so might as well have a million. Flipping a coin doesn't affect it really, because the choice is binary and you weren't going to flip a coin if you didn't know about the catch. So it still knows what you would have done, unless you go around flipping coins for every important choice even when there is no catch, in which case the machine retires in shame and now you live in the carvinval tent forever.
SlimThrull, I'd rather have a near-certain chance at $1M.
@@CaptainWumbo That's just it. *I* am not making the choice at all. I'm allowing a random event to make the choice. Since neither I nor the AI know what will happen the AI can't possibly know what I would pick.
nice
@@SlimThrull sure but if you just pick box B then you have 100% chance of making a million. In your scheme, if the AI can't determine your action and just decided randomly then it still has a 50 percent chance of not putting in the million dollars.
The second example reminds me of a Seinfeld joke about getting the check for dinner. “Why would I pay for this. I’m not hungry now. I just ate”
The notion that Seinfeld is a "self agent" actually explains a lot
Parfit's Hitchhiker suggests to me that for rational beings in real life the evolution of trust and reprocity is vital, also the social thing called honour. This avoids the tragedy of rationality in real life by such rational agents committing to an agreement. Sticking to the agreement increases your social standing via reliability, and that improves your future survival.
On one hand I understand the rationalists’ views that generate these thought experiments & solutions, but on the other hand I die a little bit inside each time I encounter strategy, calculus & statistics replacing human (animal) felt intuition & evolved virtues. I don’t like the guy for conditioning my safety on being payed $1000 but once I promise to give him the money, even if I’m not actually obligated in any way to give him, I’d keep to my promise. I’d hold a pretty strong conviction that once arrived into town I’d indeed stick to my promise. Of course, I’m not insensitive to circumstances, it could be that I see someone in great suffering & I decide that since it’s in my proximity I can’t ignore their plight and divert the money. In my case there wouldn’t be a calculus because I’m not smart enough to put numbers on particular situations, nor identify a function fit to give out answers relevant to ethical behavior. All I have is felt intuition & some (more or less adequate) abstract reasoning. But the fact that I hold feelings towards those around me & that they in turn hold feelings towards me is important. In a world where everyone around me engages in perfect abstract calculations with respect to their behavior towards me, thus giving me fantastic benefits, I’d still miss the felt way of connecting. There’s an old romanian movie where a little kid is raised by a robot on board a spaceship, and the robot does everything right when it comes to education but when I rewatched it recently it became so clear to me that such a tin can robot, however knowledgeable & intelligent, wouldn’t be able to raise a human (an expressive humanoid robot could do it tho). Humans might behave irrationally and prejudice each other by making stupid decisions but they need emotional rapport. As we offload decisions to cold calculus we’ll lose crucial aspects of our humanity. Joscha Bach says AGI "won’t have any _need_ for a sense of humor" because humor is a particular type of mismatch in evidence vs prediction which generates error cascades at multiple levels, which also implies a temporary loss of agency. 😞 Normies have created so much suffering through their irrationality, and autists have brought so much progress through their rationality. But like all things that turn mainstream, autistic rationality has started showing its ugly (I’d even say insane) side.
Think more not because I fall in love...
Vs
Think more this is what sincerity and obediently taught us about
I love this channel. It puts to the forefront the way rational people think.....❤
Answer to Parfit’s Hitchhiker: have him drive to Newcomb’s Carnival Tent
He’ll get his 1000 dollars
Thinking about this problem convinced me to vote. For years, causal decision making lead me to skip voting because the chance of my vote making a difference is approximately zero. But this kind of reasoning leads to a world where a large number of intelligent rational people don't vote, which I suspect does make a difference. I would prefer to live in a world where intelligent rational people vote, so now I act accordingly.
That is the best answer I've seen. The logical follow-up is to tell others about it. Causal decision making dictates that it doesn't make a difference, so why would you. But it's important that people know where it fails.
Actually, I think people just use that as an excuse, and the real reason they don't vote is that they used to put voters in the jury duty pool. But now they use I think DMV records and people haven't updated their reasoning.
I vote when I like the choice. In the case of Hillary vs Trump, I did not vote in order to show that I don't think either choice was good. That is also a rational choice: as South Park joked, choosing between a turd sandwich and a total douche...
In the other hand, this might convince someone not to vote, since it’s because of idiots like us that we get the same crooks in there every four years!
@@skynet4496 love that episode, agree those are the type of choices we get, fundamentally I’m just trying to keep evangelicals out of power.
The obvious answer is to: *Take the Brain Scanning Device* and make untold *Billions* of dollars.
Wow! How did nobody think of that!?
Ditto with the hitchhiker's: Punch the guy and steal his car
And then give him $1,000 later just to fuck with everybody.
or just stay home watch YT.
dont care about boxes, scanning machines or $😈
then i am aN anti-skeptic?
Think more the hardest way as *Television is a medium people can rely on*
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how *Television not only strengthens one's belief about the events being telecast on it, but also attracts masses much more than print or radio*
Honestly the rational act vs rational character makes a lot of sense. One seems to tackle choices the moment maximizing in the moment while one is fixed and fated to make choices ahead of time to maximize expected output overall.
The Newcomb problem with a predictor which is 90% accurate is equivalent to a problem where there is a 90% probability that an evil time-traveler goes back to change the payout of the unknown box. A rational actor who knows there’s a 90% chance they will be punished for greed by an evil time traveler will choose to play non-greedily.
This is also similar to the class of iterative game problems which is different from the class of single game problems. Humans as social creatures are geared toward acting optimally/rationally in iterative game problems, which may look irrational under the lens of a single game.
A famous example is a game with 2 players and $20. Each player can vote to split or vote to steal. If they vote to split, they each get $10. If one votes to steal, he gets $20 and the other gets $0. If both vote to steal, then both get $0. A rational player will always choose to steal because it either increases his reward (from $10 to $20 if the other player chooses to split), or keeps his reward the same (stays at $0 if the other player chooses to steal). Now, here’s the interesting part: the game gets an additional “punish” action, where any player who is stolen from can pay out of his own pocket $50 to penalize the other player $200.
No rational actor would ever choose to punish in such a way because they would lose $50, and a rational actor only looks selfishly at his own interest, not in whether others are rewarded or punished. However, in iterative game theory, where you will again and again play with that same actor, or with other actors in his clan who might learn from his experiences, it’s important to reward or punish them to train their behavior. So for $50 cost you train the other player (punishing him $200, which will re-weight his neural network) to make him act fairly in future games and build your reputation as someone who won’t tolerate unfair treatment.
This is the element often missing in game theory: adding an option to rewrite the opponent’s neural network for future games. Hustlers are very good at this, they will intentionally lose a game of billiards over a bet of $20, and then ask for a $100 game, hoping you think they stink, when really they’re hustling you and will certainly win. Poker is very similar as well, as you can train your opponents over the course of many hands.
Iterative games are way more complicated than single games. And games with evil time-travelers are just iterative games in disguise. Instead of time-traveling, the predictor could merely observe how you played past games which builds up your reputation for being either greedy or not. And then you play a million games, each time under amnesia, but only one is with real money but you don’t know which. And the predictor in each game has memory of how you played all the past ones.
Don't you mean the computer having 90% accuracy would be equivalent to an evil time travel changing the box 10% of the time, not 90%? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
You have just become one of my favourite teachers on RUclips.
Thankyou, for being you, for simply doing what you do, and for it happening to be exceptional in quality. Good work.
When I was at university, whenever studying logic came up, I always had a headache. This video illustrates why.
The perfect hitchhiker paradox is also based on belief in Contra Causal free will. The mistake is to hold the past fixed when considering both options.
Think more the wisest way as *Simplicity and Complexity* in *Communication Dynamics*
Vs
Think more the wisest way as why we are often told *'keep it simple' to avoid unnecessary complications in the message we want to communicate*
It seems to me that the problem is improperly defined. The two box option is a red herring and meaningless. You are choosing between the $1000 and the $1M and your probabilityof getting the $1M is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the scanning machine. So the real problem can be simplified to "is the machine accurate?" If the machine is 100% accurate then always choose $1M because the scanning machine can predict what you will choose and will predict you will choose $1M. If it is not 100% accurate then take it's accuracy and measure it against your personal risk tolerance and choose that way.
Adam White Assume for the moment that the machine is 100% accurate. While we agree that we should one-box (as if we do we get 1M assuming 100% accuracy), there are decision theories that tell us not to because they focus more on what you can effect in the future by the decisions you make, and, in this case, they reason there can be no effect on future outcomes given that the money is already in the box (or not), so you should take both. So you are entirely wrong. It doesn't solely depend on the accuracy of the scanning machine or oracle. It entirely depends on the decision theory the decision maker holds at the time of the oracles prediction. It is a meta game. Hold a decision theory that leads you to two-box, and you get $1000, hold a decision theory that leads you to one-box and you get 1M.
+Cam Spiers Your argument here is changing the meaning of accuracy. You are essentially assuming the scanning machine is incapable of predicting the existence of the meta game. That, to me, does not represent 100% accuracy. Meta layers are still pieces of information. If the scanning machine does not have access to these pieces of information then it is not 100% accurate.
It all comes down to the claim that the machine does what people say it does, make a perfect scan and a perfect prediction. If perfect prediction does not mean what it seems it should mean, then the paradox is a useless puzzle. It's like playing a game of chess where your opponent has a pet eagle that will steal your pieces at random.
Cam Spiers: If any decision theory would suggest that I choose both boxes, than that decision theory is simply an irrational one in this context to work from, so the rational person wouldn't work from it, thus guaranteeing them $1,000,000. After you leave the tent, go back to considering it as an option if you want, but while inside, those are objectively suboptimal choices to consider.
How could you “know” it is 100% accurate? Certainly not by its previous record, even if it has been 100% correct thus far.
William Ward because that’s what the thought experiment is, you are meant to suspend your disbelief and just assume the machine is accurate. It’s the point of the problema
It seems to me that the deep tragedy of rationality is its close association with selfishness.
exactly!!!
I would say it's not a tragedy but an indication of how we should approach morality.
@@PraniGopu Say on.
I don't remember if Dan Dennett covered this one in Intuition Pumps, but he did such a great job deconstructing similar thought experiments that I'd be curious what he would have to say about it.
lmao big fan never thought id see you here
@@kenanfidan4744 LOOL sameee
Wow, its jeff!
watchu doing here Jefe!
Are you why I keep getting recommended her videos?
Think more the wisest way as how *Staying in Control* is a must in *Communication Dynamics*
Vs
Think more the wisest way as the key to handling the dynamics involved *Be as prepared as we can before we start; as communication, once started, cannot easily be stopped*
Think more the wisest way in a world where there are so many opinions or views from different kinds of people, which may be a line of quotation from Philosopher, a sentence of paraphrasing from Doctor, a sweet stanza lyrical poem from a Teacher, a meaningful word with sudden Exclamation or apostrophe or question mark from an engineer etc
Vs
Think more the wisest way why it's not good to just agree without understanding the context randomly
Have you heard about Douglas Hofstadter's superrationality? Very interesting.
Lu û hm kk(
Parfit's Hitchhiker reminds me of that scene in the Granite State episode of Breaking Bad when Walter asks if the cleaner (I don't think he was ever given a name, but he was played by Robert Forster) if he could trust him to get what was left of his fortune to his kids, and Forster says: "Would you believe me if I said I would?"
Here are two criminals (selfish-agents) who have been motivated in their lives of crime by a ruthless rationality. In Walt's case, he initially is motivated by a desire to help his family, but when we see him turn down a chance to work for Grey Matter, he turns it down out of overweening pride. Forster has a front business and an underground business in 'disappearing' criminals with false identities. Both work in cash, with no expectations of trust beyond that of necessity and that which can be backed up by violence. The only way Walt would have been able to persuade Forster to pay would have required muscle that Forster already knows he doesn't have. Hence Walt's plan to drive back to New Mexico and put the screws to his old partners in Grey Matter is brilliant, and takes full advantage of their imperfect information, and effete gullibility.
I remember when we covered this in school. I immediately chose to flip a coin and randomise my choice, thus defeating the experiment.
Clever. Even if the reliable predictor described in the experiment predicts that you will make that decision, it's been described as reliable predictor of choice not a reliable predictor of true randomness so will not be able to predict the coin toss. Defeats the thought experiment by changing it from a set dichotomy of choice, sure, but it doesn't really address the crux of the problem - which is to say, the thought experiment lays out an illustration of a problem: that of two equally valid, equally rational but diametrically opposed decisions with no rational way of determining which one to take in a given instance. Your 'solution' doesn't really solve that problem, so much as avoid addressing it by giving up on rationality altogether in favour of random chance.
@@smockboy I disagree. Flipping the coin produces the highest expected payout consistent with rational action.
There ether is $1 million in the box or there is not. Therefore, choosing both boxes dominates choosing only one.
However, if we choose both the expected payout is only $100.
Choosing only one has an expected payout of $1000000, but that's not a rational choice.
Randomising, though, has an expected payout $250100, because we don't know whether the second box will contain money if we do something other than choose.
@@SylviusTheMad Not only is this the right answer and a rational answer, it is a practical answer, in that it forms the basis for game-theory optimal mixed strategies in poker and other games where one player is trying to guess what the other player will do.
You must be really smart a quick witted
@@fenzelian One of the things I don’t particularly like about these sort of thought experiments is that supposedly it shouldn’t matter whether in the guaranteed box there’s $1 of $100 or $1000 of $100,000 if the other box has $1 million.
But it very much does, and whether a person takes guaranteed money is highly dependent on what their needs are. “Is this enough to change my life?” is probably the most important single factor that goes into what you’re going to choose, and it seems completely irrational not to consider how important that is.
If you’re rich enough, it seems nice and logical to get $1,000 for nothing. But the poorer you are, the more you know that $1,000 will disappear to any number of uncontrollable costs and the only thing that can get you out the hole you’re in is a unbroken string of decades of good luck or else a massive amount of wealth. “But doesn’t a poor person need $1000 more?” They need many thousands more, and their income will fluctuate wildly regardless, so they understand their circumstances perfectly.
Think more the quickest way as another *Barriers of Effectiveness* which is *Organisational*
Vs
Think more the wisest way as how *Most organisations are full of real and potential problems which form barriers to any attempt at affective communication*
Think more the hardest way as long Data type of Primitive
Vs
Think more the hardest way as (It is a 64-bit signed two's complement integer. It's minimum value is -9,223,372,036,854,775,808 and maximum value is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807.)
If you're being told that selecting the single box would give 1 million dollars, then that should be included as a signal in the causal decision theory and thus the opaque box becomes the only rational choice. Any other choice where you don't have this information then the normal decision theory happens. In a way, in all situations there can only be one rational choice, or am I missing something?
I've been having the same thought as I watched this.
Mike Sampat but assuming that the machine has unlimited capabilities, if you manage to land in the decision to take only one box, you will have a million dollars. If not, you will have a thousand.
A rational person would chose only one box. Again, assuming they believe the scientist and the machine is totally accurate.
coax, unless I misunderstand the paradox, I would always choose the opaque box. I know myself well enough that even before I met the scientist and saw her two boxes, given the circumstances, I would take the one box. UNLESS you don't know about the brain scan.
Mike Sampat, assuming that the scanner can analyze your intentions/plans, your intention/plan to take both boxes determines that you will only get $1000.
You were told the machine would put the million dollars in the opaque box _after_ you entered the room. You can pick the opaque box but that doesn't mean you were planning on doing so when you walked in the room. To be able to walk out with a million dollars you'd have to be 100% certain that that's what you were going to do before being told about the mind reading machine. If you don't have that information, then the whole mind reading machine thing is just noise, and, from the information _you actually have_ you will walk away with money 100% of the time by taking both boxes.
My 14yr old: “Get your friends who went to the carnival with you to try the different options and split the proceeds” which highlights the biggest flaw with Newcomb’s problem: who goes to a carnival on their own?
If you have four friends, have the first two go in for the million. If the box fails twice, the next two go for the two boxes, and you all come out $400 better off. If the first two succeed, the last two follow suit, and all of you win.
This seems contrived somehow. The first problem relies on determinism. The second demands that the hitchhiker is sociopathic and the other guy it telepathic and that there is no way of creating an incentive for the hitchhiker to hold his end of the bargain. In such a situation the offer would never be made to the hitchhiker in the first place. I think that is the flaw in both cases actually. In the first problem you are effectively removing choice and then asking someone to make a choice. It's a phoney problem.
Also, with the hitchhiker, couldn't you haggle first, then arrive at a bargain that you would uphold, and perhaps shake on it?
Think more the hardest way as Fifth research stage of making a documentary is *The Branches of the issue*
Vs
Think more the Hardest Way as Sixth research stage of making a documentary is *Challanges* which on the other hand an issue when explored in a film, is incompleted when there is nothing introduced that challanges it
Think more the hardest way with why the attribute of the tag is used to set the background color of HTML document..
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how #FF0000 is a color code of Red, #0000FF of Blue, #ADD8E6 of light blue, #FFFF00 of Yellow, #FF00FF of Magenta, #808080 of Grey, #FFA500 of Orange, #800000 of Maroon, #808000 of Olive
My first thought was to ask myself why I would believe this side-show "scientist". It must be some kind of con.
This is at the root of a crazy theory of mine: The evolutionary basis of romantic love is to allow rational actors to credibly commit to support each other in times of hardship. Committing to support each other through sickness and hardship is a rational, beneficial arrangement for both parties, but if either party does end up requiring more support than they can give in return the rational decision would be for the more capable party to abandon the relationship. But, if you can both demonstrate an irrational, innate connection that transcends rationality, then you can credibly enter into a contract that has some chance of surviving even if one person would be better served by leaving.
Or to put it another way, love is irrational. But because of love we can credibly commit to support each other in irrational ways, which is a better state of the world than purely rational actors can achieve.
the assumption "if either party does end up requiring more support than they can give in return the rational decision would be for the more capable party to abandon the relationship" is not necessarily valid or at least is ill-defined. There many rational reasons for partnering up, including external, societal factors that go beyond what both parties can exchange. Also a lot of the benefits of partnering comes from yourself, your own body, psychology and organizational advantage: for example, if your partner takes more than they give, you can think of them in a way analogous to a secretary, someone you pay for a service that's useful to you. Not to mention that balance is impossible due to randomness.
There's a cost to abandon a partner and seek another. Many times this cost can be steep, so this can also be a factor lessening the value of that decision.
There's some meat to this but it's muddied by the value of reproduction in a relationship.
@@whirled_peas This itself is an irrational desire relative to only working for your own benefit within your life; however, given that reproduction is a terminal goal for enough people, the rationality of it cannot be measured.
Having children is basically a worse repeat of the Parfit paradox if you want the children to support you later in life (as a different terminal goal if reproduction is not your terminal goal) because a child could not credibly commit to something that is against their greedy self interest to leave you out to dry when they haven’t been born yet.
Take the opaque box, enjoy your million dollars and the beautiful red sky at sunset!
$1,999,000 after you pay off the businessman.
Think more the hardest way as *•A Sorry sight:* which is a regrettable and unwelcome aspect or feature.
Vs
Think more the hardest way as *•Acid test:* which is a sure test, given an incontestable result
Think *TILT* which is the movement of camera to angle up or angle down in à continuous movement
Vs
Think *SFX* which is an abbreviation for sound effects,
Best funded scientist ever...
+Emerson White I could see why... put such an apparatus at strategic places, and the powers that be wouldn't face a threat ever.. They'd know who'd oppose them and can deal with them easily... if they're clever about it.
The obvious answer is to flip a coin, that way you have a 50/50 chance of getting a $1,000,000.
DKshad0w Clever!
Julia Galef How does that help? It won't change what's in the box. Even if the predictor had a perfect record up to that point it won't change what's in the box. It's not a matter of probability either. Considering anything else is magical thinking. There is no evidence that leaving the clear box behind will put money in the other box. The "rational character" is misnamed. It's being applied to include someone who is confused in this situation and behaves irrationally. The should be called "people who are frequently rational but fall apart in intellectually challenging situations".
Somebody gave a thumbs up on my response so I thought it best to update my thinking on this. Following Julia's advice in a subsequent video of hers I began to rethink the situation along other lines. A possible situation is that a person might walk out with both boxes getting only the
$10,000 but now knowing the situation come back another day with the following strategy. In the interim they could have their brain hard wired to only take the opaque box. This ensures that the scanner will detect what will happen and so put the $1,000,000 into the opaque box. That being done when they walk out with that box they will get the million dollars.
So what is the best strategy? Decide to take both boxes or just the opaque one. The game is the same in both cases but the conditions of the player have changed. ( It need not be the same player, the strategy will apply to anyone who knows the with enough time to pre-commit in this manner. )
One radical difference is is that when confronted with the two boxes the subject no longer has a choice as to what they will do. The aspect of choice was removed before they walked into the tent. At this point they can't make a rational choice or an irrational choice. They may feel like they are making a choice , it may look to others like a choice is being made but that is no longer possible.
If they made a choice then it was when they decided to have their brain hard wired to force them to take only the opaque box.
And this gets to the core of the situation. The description of the situation posits the possibility of a choice being made and predictability of what that choice will be. In any situation where predictability applies is the concept of a choice within that situation possible?
Given some closed system where what will happen over the next ten minutes can be correctly predicted can anything within that system be properly said to make any choices at all? They may feel like they are making a choice but if their choice is predetermined it isn't a choice.
The problem gets it force from this. It posits a contradiction. choice being made in a system with prediction. It is a well hidden but definitely there. In such situations people will rely on their presuppositions and unknowingly apply those. Being a contradiction the rule of explosion applies and any conclusion can be reached.
Thanks to Julia for the encouragement to try a variety of view points in analysing a situation.
+DKshad0w Why not flip a 90% biased coin? Or just use a 100% biased coin to always get 1,000,000...
Which is much worse than the 100% chance of getting $1,000,000 by simply grabbing the opaque box only. So... why? The only advantage would be getting that extra little $1,000 out of your strategy.
But +50% chance for a thousand is way way not worth the LOSS of a 50% chance at a million (going from 100% to 50%).
Also, no coin or other random factor is mentioned as being available in the problem, so it'd be cheating anyway, but more importantly, it's worse than one of your main, normal options.
I'm going with the schrödingers approach: the machine basically predicts the future, so i can influece the decision of the machine by my actions in the future
So it follows, that the contents of the box are not yet decided until i make my decision. So the rational thing to do is to pick the decision which gives me the most money
If you had two buttons, one gives you both boxes, with the opaque one empty, while the other button first fills the box with money, and then gives it to you, it would be clear what to do.
I think its the same situation. Dont look at causality in the normal way, since the machines ability to predict the future changes the causality of the situation
Exactly, i wanted to comment just that. The paradox stems from the fact that there's an agent that can predict the future, not due to rationality. It's almost like a grandfather's paradox but in reverse.
Any situation that includes time travel or predicting the future almost always leads to contradictions.
That's not right and she adresses the objection in the video. You don't need perfect prediction of the future, even a very imperfect prediction will do. And the prediction is based purely on observed correlations, there is no retrocausality. For example, I don't need a magical machine to predict that if I ask a random child in the street to jump three times for no resaon, most of them will do it but most adults will just ignore me. To make this prediction I used a really crappy brainscan, my eyes.
If you had access to much more sophisticated tools, you could make better predictions, but there is no fundamental difference.
@@oumdead9542 It doesn’t need to predict the future in order to act as though it is predicting the future; ergo you can act as though it predicts the future in order to get the most money.
Think more the Hardest way as how I The Proletkult's director, Vsevolod Meyerhold, became a big influence on Eisenstein.
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how Eisenstein furthered Muyerhold's theory with his own ''montage of attractions"
Think more the hardest way as Nested list that is formed by combining multiple lists within a single list...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as any type of list-ordered, unordered or definition can be nested
Reminds me of the first Harry Potter book, when he gets the stone.
I have a solution. This paradox is a lot like the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma, it is always rational to defect in a given round. However, when you play multiple rounds, it's usually rational to cooperate. Thus, if you put some weight on future rounds, it can be rational to take the opaque box. If you take only the opaque box now, that means you are the type of person who could get a million dollars in the future.
This also applies across game types. For example, if you take the opaque box now, you are more likely to be the sort of person who'd pay $1000 for a ride to town. Thus, if you treat this paradox as merely a single round in the game, it is rational to take only the opaque box. Additionally, you can prepare for this paradox by making this decision any time it comes up in everyday life.
The box problem is simply about "Do I believe them?" no matter how you dress it up.
it seems she doesn't actually understand the material. and this is an observation I'd prefer to deny. "I want to believe the pretty lady"
Then add to the problem whatever method of proof you would like. Say they let you watch as many people as you like do the same thing. Say they let you do it yourself and open one or both boxes as many times as you like (but not actually getting to keep the money at the end) before you choose for real. Then what do you do?
@@sykes1024 There's no quandary there. My post was not about prescribing whether or not a person ought to believe them, but only that the choice they make will depend solely on that.
You provided a scenario in which a person could confidently believe that they will get $1M if they take the opaque box only. So of course, in that case, they should take the opaque box. That follows what I said, not disproves it.
@@SFDestiny She understands it quite clearly. The problem is in the question's set up, not her comprehension. The fact that you seem to believe that she doesn't comprehend the material, while giving a thorough and reasoned explanation makes evident either a) your own lack of comprehension or b) that you didn't pay attention/actually watch through.
@@TheShadowsCloak I've already said, I'd prefer she understood. Your assertions increase my dissatisfaction without shedding new light.. Yes, you're partisan. But, why bother telling *me* ??
Think more the hardest way as History of Documentary Films content after Post production content..
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how the genre 'Documemtary films" has made its presence felt right from the beginning of film histoty
Think 📆💎
Vs
Think dates, weekly days, sundays, Holidays, Important days, market days, events or functions days etc
Assume the woman is lying, take both boxes, also beat her up and search the tent for money after checking both boxes.
Agree. There's no rational reason to put a million bucks in the box, ever.
"mad" scientist
Think more the hardest way as how in the same 1875, famous Historian *William Jones* published the *Asiatic Miscellany* and how this journal got its name changed to *Asiatic Miscellany and Bengal Register* in 1787.
Vs
Think more the hardest way *as Calcutta was the centre of major political and businesses activities it has a large number of learned people and intelligentsia, as most of the newspapers in early days were published from here* .
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible like how wise I managed to cover up the portion I need to personally accomplish, though how good or bad it is...
Vs
Think more the Hardest way it's the only duty of how I specifically sacrificed to survive for
Think more the hardest way as how Magazines that are available in internet are known as Online magazines* and how they shared common features with blogs and also with online newspapers and how *They are a part of the world wide web which we called as "Webzines"* .
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how *the knowledge and information in magazine never exhausts with the change of time* .
Think more the Hardest way as how, one the General outline of the story is ready, the script is made using a 2-column script temple
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as why sound is as important as the image
Think more as wise as possible with Computing Q is for QBasic
Vs
Think more as wise as possible with Computing R is for Random Access Memory
Think more the Hardest way with Guidelines to writing a proper Paraphrase...
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as why there are certain things that a writer must always keep in mind, when quoting things from other texts in paraphrase style, in order to be clear and to avoid plagiarism as well
Think more the Hardest way as *Feedback* a factor where the reaction or processes initiated by the receivers of messages
Vs
Think more the hardest way as *Noise* the 6th factor that involves in communication process where the messages always travel in the channels that are having many disturbances
Think more if I have a clean mind, with clean heart..
Vs
Think more no matter how tougher the temptations are, I may go through them but never attached to them
Think more the hardest way since the last comment 60+ minutes ago, a moment after I helped sweeping the 75% of house compound floor, less with the concentratedly focussing attitude that I didn't pay to what I hear and what I see, though I was framely framed to react and respond with every minutely details of deep rationality focussing...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as wise as how I have to work on even I need to take rest and refresh myself
Think more the wisest way with the reflection of *Grapevine* metaphorically and how *The more outrageous the 'story' the sweeter it tastes*
Vs
Think more the wisest way as how *The Grapevine exists in every organisation, in the heart and mind of every individual*
Think more the hardest way as v is for Vertical tab
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how in C++ cin and cout are used to perform input and output operations in sequential media, such as the screen or the keyboard..
Such an interesting paradox!
Hmmm...the evidential decision here is only rational if you believe retrocausality is possible, right? Once I see the boxes, the prediction has been made, and my decision could only affect what's in the opaque box if there is some retrocausal mechanism (like using a time machine to make the prediction). If you take the problem in complete isolation, then sure, the evidence seems to suggest that my decision could be retrocausal. But in reality I would approach the problem with all of my knowledge of the world thus far, including the fact that I haven't seen any compelling evidence that retrocausality is possible, hence my decision is very unlikely to affect the outcome.
Think more the quickest Intuitively way as *How do we communicate with groups or teams within our area of responsibility?*
Vs
Think more the quickest Intuitively way *when meeting the full group/team face to face, meeting the coordinator or leader, through written communication normally, when reports and presentations are made*
Think more the hardest way as wise as how I know, If I'm going to sleep without completing the today's portion tasks, this just shows I take my responsibility lightly...
Vs
Think more just as wise as how I'm just stucked with unending measurement of doubts that I can still sense you're not with me
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how *Beekeepers* feel alive, when they placed the packed bottles with a seal on top of them, being displayed in one of the trade fair after knowing that bee keeping process isn't an easy job...
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how being Mindfulness means being Dedicated to any assigned job until we see the results
I fell in love with her and her David Bowie eyes about five years ago.Still here.
Think more as wise as possible when you know that I'm always looking for good in you...
Vs
Think more it doesn't mean I always have to pleasuring alone imagerily, but it's about of how I didn't wanted you to mistake of lecturing me repeatedly but misses your pleasuring need in reality
Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Disbursement* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as D is for *Depreciation* again
Interesty. I've been listening to a lot of Norse mythology, and it seems as if they celebrated the rational yet selfish act, I'm thinking about the story of The Master Builder, but there are lots of stories where people are unfairly tricked and conned for the benefit of the hero without any shame or repercussions. I wonder if this speaks to that cultures way of thinking about rationality?
Think more the Hardest way with deducted seconds that I have to automatically waste while responding to those who distractedly manage to confuse or doubt me whenever I was in a full mood of Specifically Focus with the stuff I repeatedly put into practice intuitively for the sake of goodness for all on the other hand.
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as M is for Move, N is for Narrative
Two boxing is based on belief in contra causal free will.
It's not true that what's in the box is fixed. If you're going to two box the past would have been different than if you're going to one box.
And that resolves the paradox and I dare say is correct.
Think more the hardest way as why news is one of the most important programmes on television, the hardest way as why the writers of news stories are always under pressure
Vs
Think more the hardest way as why Television News writing's only adde element is visuals, and how inspite of almost the same writing pattern, the style of presenting news on Television differs from other mode of communication
What if you enter the room with the intention of rolling a dice to determine which decision you will make. This nullifies the ability of the scanner to read you
Also why both boxes. It would be better if you can only take one box.
Think more the hardest way but why in the end, I feel like I'm making myself embarrass if I pretend like staying away from you, no matter how much I had so much complaining about you...
Vs
Think more as wise as how I understand your limits as a woman, and what's that making me to just come close towards you and say nothing but pretend like I'm sorry, I had so much attitude especially when I'm fed-up with the baits I was framed to freely have fun and enjoy
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how introducing *Municipality* in a society has helped shaping the community to be legally free from dumping, garbaging, dirtying, polluting etc the surrounding etc
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how *News* thriving the people's mindset on being informed as viewer, reader, writer etc and the legal way of how an informed individual can be an influence to his/her people surrounded him/her such as his family, relatives, neighbours, friends, Colleagues strangers, etc
If we consider the scientist's prediction to be reliably accurate, this factor by itself should make us choose the opaque box, no? If we choose both boxes hoping to get the greatest sum possible, we are basically hoping the scientist was wrong in her prediction, which would be highly unlikely in this scenario. It would be rational to choose both boxes only if we really, really desire a non-zero sum of money and don't want to bet on any odds whatsoever. Otherwise, go for the opaque box without question! I don't see any "tragedy of rationality" here.
Think more the hardest way with why the Head section contain information about the HTML document..
Vs
Think more the hardest way with why the Body section contain the tags and contents that define the body of the document
Think more the quickest intuitively way since the last comment, 1260+ seconds ago with respect to an unpeaceful mood when someone argued about, as I came upon reminding him about the hired vehicle today which unintentionally at a moment that I needed it, the same person who asked for it needed it at the same time..
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way deep as wise as one thing that I'm tired of being in the level that anyone can easily control me based on how sincere am I to them, not knowing how much hidden efforts I managed to just make them that I respect their priorities on their level of credibility, seniority, ability etc... the quickest intuitively way deep as wise as how I know choosing my way to live accordingly based on the discipline efforts that I repeatedly intuited, it doesn't mean I have to act like I don't know once I come across under anybody else's policies
Idk, as long as we don't assume (or have) the probabilities for any of the claims to be right or wrong, we can't make a rationale decision. If we do, what is the problem besides that the probabilities can be wrong?
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how I find its impossible to get a photographic terms that start with letter I even if googled...
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as J is for *Joint Photographic Expert Group(JPEG)* again where it is the standard method of image data compression used to reduce the file size of digital images
Think more when I learnt how not to forgive...
Vs
Think more when I learnt how forget
Think more the hardest way as how Ideal translation should be *Accurate* I e, it should reproduce the source text as accurately as possible
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how the translation should be *Natural* i.e using natural forms of the receptor Language in a way that is appropriate to the kind of text being translated.
Think more as how *Kinoautomat* is known as Black comedy, opening with a flash-forward to a scene in which Petr Novak's apartment is in flames
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how the version presented in Montreal had been dubbed into English in London, ans was subtitled *One man and his House*
Think more the hardest way when I'm wise enough to know that even in the midst of hardest situation that I may face alone...
Vs
Think more the hardest way to not be fool by unusual myths of dreaming while I sleep at night
Think more the Hardest way with there's a way to get rid off of what's that deduct my day through what I believed I could do something..
Vs
Think more just as wise as how I rationalised my level of satisfaction when I learnt how to be stable and content with what I have
Think more the hardest way since the last comment, somewhere between 10800-14400 seconds ago...
Vs
Think more the hardest way how not to always wasted my time of stuffs that aren't not much meaningful at all, like laughing at made-up random videos on Facebook, Instagram although at some point of times the more we tend to enjoy watching them, the more I realised I've just wasted my time on what I specifically focussed on and how I feel this just turned me as a person to not take serious on stuff that I repeatedly maintain the habit of being mature enough with self discipline goal
Think more with these steps 🧍🏻♂️-🧍🏻♀️: at time when being single
👩🏻🤝👨🏾: At time before relationship
👩❤️👨: During in relationship
👩❤️💋👨: When Falling in love between one another
👰🏼🤵🏻♂️: Agreeing for Marriage
🤰🏻🙋🏻♂️: 9 months after marriage
👨👩👦: 2 years after marriage
👨👩👧👦: 4 years after marriage
👴🏻👨🏻👩🏻👵🏻: 25 years after marriage
⚰️⚰️: After having grandkids
🪦🪦: This is life, but not 🌋 everytime alone in secret place
Vs
Think more as hard as why I can't be fool even if I knew where I am wrong at
Think more the Hardest way as why we have to write with utmost care keeping in mind the people who are going to receive the message...
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how these days, Mass communication too has been bifurcated into many kinds for the purpose of effective communication
Think more the Hardest way since the last comment, 3600+ seconds ago..
Vs
Think *DOLLY* a similar shot like track but it moves towards or away from the subject. The hardest way as how the effect is the size getting larger and smaller
Think more the hardest way with why Binary Arithmetic performed the same way as we perform addition with decimal numbers..
Vs
Think more the hardest way with why 100+101=10 0 1 in Binary Arithmetic
Think more the Hardest way as why if we go to watch a movie at the theatre, we are always forced to view the list of people involved in the production process, such as producer, co-producer, line producer etc
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as hoelw generally a producer is a person who first initiated the idea for the film and/or found the original novel or screenplay or treatment and/or found the director and actors who would agree to do the film and/or headed up the effort to sell the idea to financiers and distributors and generally herded the movie through to completion.
Think more the quickest intuitively way since the last comment, somewhere between 57600-61200 seconds ago again with respect to what that's makes me focussing on specifically, although portion of my day that I wasted since the moment I get up from bed goes with the flow like remembering myself to adjust my morning routine before or after my first meal of a day. Refrain my own mind with usual newday's update, being able to put some good efforts from my side as a teacher to students with respect to scheduled time table of a day, knowing how my words or sentences are put into frame while having a conversation with others orally. A relief in mind with a hope of something excellent from better that I expected from Mechanical point of view updation...
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as wise as remaining 24540 seconds of Thursday here as well as remaining 57540 seconds of Thursday there with respect to same rule that I shouldn't forget about on why I shouldn't be fool way always anyway no matter what
Think more the hardest way as how data in a cell can be alligned as per use's allignment
Vs
Think more the hardest way but why not the variety of options or formulas
Think more the hardest way as Marginheight attribute of Frame tag
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how it specifies the space to be left between the frame's content s at its top and bottom margins
Think more to fool not by two additional helpers while I cleaned the roadside wall with mother...
Vs
Think more to fool not by how I was framed like I had links with them too
Think more as how the Garage mechanic appreciated an honest *car repairer* whom he employed, for not taking any additional charge with money he give to him to buy repairment equipments unlike the other car repairers who doesn't do the same as honest car repairer...
Vs
Think more as honest that we can figure here is about caring of the little things in detail even every one are bothered about stuffs with big amount of money
Think more the hardest way as why communication is one of the basic need and pre-requisite for human existence..
Vs
Think more the hardest way as why information is an integral part of human existence and how human beings have a brain and five sensory perceptions that they use to collect and process information...
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as A is for *Accomplish* again
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as B is for *Bold* again