4 Answers
Leave a Reply
You must Register - Login to add an answer.
Login – Register
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If we put a robot in the donkey's place, then it is obvious that in a situation of equal choice, the robot will require external intervention. Everyone who works at a computer knows how often it needs human help to solve non-standard tasks.
Why does even the simplest cell work smoothly?
The fact is that the living differs from the inanimate precisely in that the living, both energetically and informationally, is an unstable system that is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. That is, she falls somewhere all the time, but manages to replace the supports in time, while she is still alive, as soon as she stops keeping up , she will die.
In the field of information, the same thing happens to the body: it constantly makes mistakes, but immediately corrects mistakes, while it has time to correct – it is alive, if it does not have time, it will make a fatal mistake and die.
Thus, Buridan's donkey will definitely make a choice, and this choice will be wrong, but if the mistake is not fatal, then nothing terrible will happen.
It is not necessary to think that consciousness takes some part in making a decision, even a person makes most decisions unconsciously. The mechanism that allows a living person to make decisions in a situation of lack of choice or uncertainty is called will.
Any paradox arises with the goal of disappearing. The paradox of psychological choice between two equally valuable options is its highest intensity manifestation, which creates the maximum potential for the paradox to disappear. Choosing is the lack of knowledge of what to do, i.e. ignorance and lack of freedom. The omnipresent perfection of the ongoing omniscience and omnipotence of being thus indicates the presence of ignorance and creates an opportunity for its discovery, disappearance and manifestation of absolute freedom. I.e., the donkey ceases to be tormented by choice. What happens next doesn't really matter, the donkey can choose left, right, or none, it doesn't matter at all. The main thing is that there is no ignorance and lack of freedom of choice.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D7CH9cRN8Rg?wmode=opaque
Most paradoxes are based on combining conditions that are not compatible with each other in one problem. The example of Buridanov's donkey is no exception. You can't solve a problem that contains an error in the conditions. In this case, the error is the idea of the perfect identity of objects that symbolize the incentive for the one who chooses one of the two actions. Objects are always different. However, if you have a different opinion, I can give you another argument:
Even if the stimuli are perfectly identical, the choice will certainly be made, since in addition to these objects (two haystacks, two carrots, etc.), there is also an environment in which the choice is made. Simple example:
The wind is blowing. The wind direction is such that it brings more odors from one of the haystacks. And from the other stack a little less. Which haystack tastes better to a donkey?
And there are a lot of such additional conditions.
I will say right away that there is no solution, but there are solutions.
I will also note that Buridan's paradox of choice was considered in the context of good/evil and the consequences of choice. But to everyone, as usual…
Within the framework of logic, there are three options: left lawn, right lawn, and starvation. If we give a donkey the ability to think rationally, it won't choose the third option. Thus, the donkey has time constraints: you need to choose before you die. Then there are many solutions: taking into account the consequences of choice, searching for additional factors of choice (cognition), and so on. Thus, the donkey has time constraints: you need to choose before you die. At the institute, a student was put in the place of a donkey (a common practice), and the role of seductive lawns was assigned to no less seductive girls. The time limit, again, was set by natural needs. Of all the solutions, our teacher promoted a focus on random phenomena: for example, girls are at the same distance, but they can't be in the same place, and you need to choose the one on which the light falls better, otherwise the story of a donkey student will become the story of a turkey student who thought a lot.