Weekly Wikipedia Find: Prisoner's dilemma

So here we are, a thought experiment coming back on the scene and kicking incest to the curb. How utterly disappointing. And middlebrow. Seriously now, if someone out there sees the the incestuous deep sea monster thought experiment Wikipedia entry, forward it my way.

This thought experiment, the Prisoner's dilemma, is actually a problem in Game Theory as described by the RAND Corporation.

I'm not going to bother to try to do this one justice so you should probably just read it yourself if you're interested. I'll just mention the point that if two accomplices in a crime are brought in for their crime, and given the chance to betray the other (in separate interrogations, natch), then "rational choice leads the two players to both play defectly even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperately."

But remember that movie about game theory Nobel Prize winner John Forbes Nash Jr.--A Beautiful something-- and how it was only so-so, but it had the great scene where Nash and his faculty pals used game theory to pick up girls in a bar. (I believe they decided they shouldn't all go after the blonde--I'm not sure, I only saw it like once. It was so middlebrow.)

Wikipedia by Week

Week Thirty-Nine: Demimonde
Week Thirty-Eight: Haemophilia in European royalty
Week Thirty-Seven: Library of America
Week Thirty-Six: Honeypot
Week Thirty-Five: Glasgow smile
Week Thirty-Four: Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel
Week Thirty-Three: Mono no aware
Week Thirty-Two: Royal intermarriage
Week Thirty-One: Amputee fetishism
Week Thirty: Turtles all the way down
Week Twenty-Nine: The Diogenes Club
Week Twenty-Eight: E pur si muove!
Week Twenty-Seven: Unico
Week Twenty-Six: Panopticon
Week Twenty-Five: Legendary
Week Twenty-Four: Ostern
Week Twenty-Three: Kilroy was here
Week Twenty-Two: Jack Parsons
Week Twenty-One: The Wold Newton Universe
Week Twenty: Anonymous
Week Nineteen: Monty Hall problem
Week Eighteen: Brown Booby
Week Seventeen: Dieter Dengler
Week Sixteen: New Jerusalem
Week Fifteen: Technological Singularity
Week Fourteen: Numbers Station
Week Thirteen: Culper Ring
Week Twelve: Mary Sue
Week Eleven: Byford dolphin diving bell accident
Week Ten: Deep-sea gigantism
Week Nine: Bloop
Week Eight: Rat king
Week Seven: Gustave Doré
Week Six: Tomorrow
Week Five: Borscht Belt
Week Four: Swampman
Week Three: Chinese room
Week Two: Ambrose Burnside
Week One: Lolita fashion

Weekly Wikipedia Find: Monty Hall problem

I've been accumulating a lot of cool Wikipedia finds lately, oh boy, oh boy. So instead of presenting you with one of those, I thought I'd bring back an old standby: the thought experiment! Door number three, Monty.

That's right, the Monty Hall problem. This one I actually specifically sought out as I had a bit of inspiration while I was at work. You see, the men's washroom has no urinals. Just three toilets. So when you enter the washroom, all you see is three stall doors. So it's always a bit of a crap shoot choosing. Zing!

So the problem (or "the Monty Hall") is a probability puzzle based on the Monty Hall-hosted game show Let's Make a Deal. It exists in a weird alternate reality where instead of all the doors having an equal probability of 1/3 of containing the choice prize (versus the booby prizes), once you initially choose a door, the knowing host eliminates a dud door, thus creating an existential paradox where you, the contestant, will have a greater probability of winning the prize by switching your choice of doors (the remaining door has 2/3 of containing the choice prize now). The alternate reality in question: ours! Dun dun dun.

Next week: Monsters! of the Deep Sea!

Wikipedia by Week

Week Eighteen: Brown Booby
Week Seventeen: Dieter Dengler
Week Sixteen: New Jerusalem
Week Fifteen: Technological Singularity
Week Fourteen: Numbers Station
Week Thirteen: Culper Ring
Week Twelve: Mary Sue
Week Eleven: Byford dolphin diving bell accident
Week Ten: Deep-sea gigantism
Week Nine: Bloop
Week Eight: Rat king
Week Seven: Gustave Doré
Week Six: Tomorrow
Week Five: Borscht Belt
Week Four: Swampman
Week Three: Chinese room
Week Two: Ambrose Burnside
Week One: Lolita fashion

Weekly Wikipedia Find: Swampman

Certainly had no intention of doubling up weeks on thought experiments, but then again here we are.

Thought Problem! Thought Problem! Thought Problem!

Donald Davidson introduced the Swampman as philosophical thought experiment in 1987. In Davidson's paper he describes himself on a hike, in the third person. He is killed by lightning. Simultaneously, another bolt of lightning nearby rearranges molecules upon contact, spontaneously and coincidentally, to form the same form as Davidson's body upon the moment of his death. This new Davidson, dubbed Swampman, thinks and acts as Davidson would, is structurally identical, and walks out of the swamp as Davidson memories, friends, family, life intact.

In spite of everything, Swampman is not Davidson. When he meets an old friend, and there is an air of recognition, but it will be impossible for an actual recognition. Recognition can not occur without first there being cognition. Swampman has never actually met these friends of Davidson before, so this if the first time. Essentially always. For Swampman has no proper state of reference. All is incoherence.

All of this ties into semantic externalism.

Wikipedia by Week

Week Three: Chinese room
Week Two: Ambrose Burnside
Week One: Lolita fashion

Weekly Wikipedia Find: Chinese Room

Thought Problem! Thought Problem! Thought Problem!

The Chinese room argument is a thought experiment (or the German Gedankenexperiment) . On first read through, its full philosophical impact failed to hit me (my fault, not its). Still, it's no Turing test. That said, like the Turing test, it is concerned with artificial intelligence.

I'll attempt a quick run through of the actual problem-- without plagiarizing the Wikipedia entry (or the problem's originator, John Searle):

Imagine a computer. It's 1980, so imagine a 1980 computer. It shouldn't be too hard since you're a person in 1980. Imagine the year is 1980. Now a computer-- hopefully you know what a computer is. Yeah, those big room-sized machines with the punch cards and the more hassle then it's worth. Now, this computer, its input is Chinese characters and its output is other Chinese characters. To get this other from the non-other, it runs a program. This program works astonishingly well, so well as to pass the Turing test. That is, it convinces a Chinese speaker (human, naturally) that it too is human. There is the suggestion that the computer is an artificial intelligence and understands Chinese, understands like a human.

Now imagine, that instead of a program, the computer is with someone in a room, an English speaker (the computers are networked-- yes, like the internet. Oh, you don't know the internet? Geez, check out the rube from 1980.). Now this English speaker receives the Chinese speaker's input, consults a book on how to process the input to create the output, and does so. In this way, the English speaker manipulates the computer to pass the Turing test for the Chinese speaker. Without an ounce of artificial intelligence.

Did I mention that it is a criticism of the Turing test?

And that is it. The rest of the Wikipedia page is kind of extra-textual. It contains some background, some definitions, and most intriguing a lot of responses to the argument.

Wikipedia by Week

Week Two: Ambrose Burnside
Week One: Lolita fashion