Regarding your earlier example bushido, in Peter's defense, his initial judgment was good. He claimed that he could not be sure. The fault, if we are to call it that, was in changing the context in order to support his judgment. MonkeyBite helped to show that without a change in context. After re-reading this thread, I've realized that I showed poor discipline in my own approach, and should have taken it as carefully in the beginning as I did in the end.

Sometimes you'll have that I suppose.

My conclusion, your nicer than I am.

He tries.

My conclusion:

creative can recognise a mistake and correct it.

bushido will continue to deny truth to save face...

Assumptions which must me made for the thought experiment to be coherent.


-The switch is either safe, or not safe to pull. (I just cant see how this was not a given, but ultimately does not matter, becuase the info giver wouldn't know if it is different from A, to B)
-The safety or lack of safety of pulling the switch is equal for all parties. (I just cant see how this was not a given, again doesn't matter becuase the knowledge of safety is what matters)
-The knowledge of the safety of the switch never changes. (I said this specifically in the setup, so no assumptions needed on this one, also this is really the important factor, all others just dont matter, this is what establishes intent) <<<< Even with Peters objection about the difference in the information receivers height, in the setup the knowledge of its safety does not change, which means that for the example used by peter to match the setup the person giving the information could not know how the applicability of the situation differed for the two participants, OR ELSE HIS KNOWLEDGE OF ITS SAFETY WOULD BE CHANGED, which is not allowed in the setup.


1) Not possible, he tells person A, its safe, he tells person B its not safe. It is either safe or not safe there for he has told someone somthing not true, AND becuase his knowledge of its safety has not changed, he is lying to one or the other.
2) Not possible. (in the setup he tells each party something different)
3) A given (and the only way to coherently understand the setup)
4) Not possible, his knowledge of the safety has not changed.
5) Not possible, his knowledge of the safety has not changed.



When dealing with thought experiments its OK to call into question things which might render the thought experiment incoherent, but most people just assume coherency and dont try to imagine what is not presented.

So from that, I competely disagree with the rebuttals. In fact when a person says no change in context or situation one might go a head and realize this was exactly what he/she was talking about.

Changing the knowledge of safety is a change in situation.
Changing the applicability of the safety to the individual is a change in the context.
Changing the scenario to where both parties are told the same thing is just not how it was described.

Also EVEN if the safety of the switches changes, but the knowledge of the safety of the switches does not, ITS STILL LYING to tell someone it is safe even if it ends up being safe, BECAUSE MY KNOWLEDGE OF ITS SAFETY HAS NOT CHANGED. I choose to deceive. My intent remained the same.

So as you can see, there really is no gaps in the experiment that where not built in without making a change which when I said not to do that I meant becuase it would make it incoherent.

What I object to most, is the multi page tangents this forum gets off on becuase rather than play along, we get these eternal conflicts for really nothing gained.


TLDR

------------------------------------------

You can envision any thing you want, and if the knowledge of safety does not change for the person giving out the information, but two different answers are given, one is a lie.

"Knowledge of safety" must not include anything which would change the knowledge of the safety. Tautological.

Height, weight, build, super human powers. Nothing matters, becuase if the info giver knows this special circumstance then it violates the setup.

"bushido will continue to deny truth to save face..."


Damn, I'm good!

Read the TLDR. I know its hard and all, but its worth it!


If you continue to rant about things that dont matter, then I will continue to believe that you sir are an example of the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.

Not that you care, you seem only to be posting here as a troll.

Awww, u hate being proven wrong, huh?









Only you claimed to have knowledge of safety, you never told us specifics regarding the switch, the function, nor the safety.

If my scenario had been true, your knowledge of saftey would not have changed. I did nothing except allow the possibility of two separate "persons" not being identical. You never specified physical attributes of either.


Deal with it. Your thought experiment was only a simple child's game.

The main detail which cannot be changed for the setup to be coherent is that of the knowledge of safety by the person providing the information.

JB is EXACTLY right. The actual information is unimportant, the actual situation is unimportant, what is important is that the intent was to deceive, which takes giving different information to two different people knowing your giving one of them what you THINK is wrong info.

. . and yet Peter still cannot understand how to setup, or deconstruct this . . .
Peter, one of the only poeple on this forum who cannot engage in simple children's games.

You never specified the absolute safety of the switch. Your knowledge as to the safety could very well have been safe for one, not safe for the other... In which case it didn't change...


Keep trying....

orly.

Child's game indeed.

OK then, what was your knowledge of the safety of the switch?

It does not matter. Switch is either safe, or unsafe. The information given is different for the two different people involved. Those are the only elements which matter.

This means that one person got information which was believed to be wrong by the person giving that information.

The very reason this kind of thought experiment is handy is that it allows one to eliminate variables which do not change the outcome, which then highlights the important elements that answer the question.

It is counter productive to add unneeded elements.

Yes it DOES matter. The switch could very well be both safe and unsafe at the same time.

But if this does not change the knowledge of the person giving that information then it does not, becuase the intent remains the same. (knowledge is the key element)

Even if there is no switch it is still correct. Even if when the people who go into the room find NO switch, it remains valid.

So long as the person giving the information believes a switch exists, and that the safety of the switch remains the same for the two parties, then all that matters is his intent in providing that information.

There is no situation you can come up with that changes the outcome** SO LONG AS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SWITCHES SAFETY remains the same for the person giving the information, and yet he still gives two different answers to the two people.

** the outcome being that one was lied to, one was not.

I will give you yet another possibilty that you had not thought of...

Persons A and B are in the hospital hooked upto a intravenous drip.
The switch operates a penicillin dose.

You know (but of course don't tell anyone till days later) that person A is allergic to penicillin and the other is NOT.

You tell person A the switch is unsafe and you tell person B it is safe.

This is an example of



When you introduce the elements of your situation, you are changing the knowledge of the safety of the switch by changing the context of the switches safety from person A, to person B. If the person providing the information does not know this, then there is no change in his knowledge, and whatever advice he gives is based on the lack of that knowledge. Then he would still be lying to one, or the other by changing what he advised as true in pulling the switch.

You cannot have it any other way. Knowledge changing changes the setup. ie, your arguing against a straw man.

I just want to point out the intellectual dishonesty here.

That was not part of your original claim and as such is moving the goalposts.

You never specified your knowledge of any of the details.

Fell free to clarify your claim now so that you are not wrong before...

You just misunderstood how universal any change in knowledge must necessarily be for the setup to be coherent, and now that you do, you just want to avoid being that guy. Too bad Peter, YOU ARE THAT GUY.

Because its not needed so long as it doesn't change.