Forums → WEPR → THE GREAT DEBATES! (Rd. 6 Results)

@armorplayergc - You can find the initial question on page 12 (I've updated the title to reflect this, so thanks for that). Take a look at the discussion so far as this round is a little different.

This sounds arrogant

Yeah, I was worried it would come across that way. This was the only way I could think of to get some actual debating in the Great Debates while keeping things fun and friendly.

As for your thesis, @Doombreed - this makes sense now. Now remember in the opening question, I've stipulated that you can't really do anything about it. Believing that P makes you miserable - end of story.

So I guess you want to to pressure on the idea that believing that P will make you miserable for the rest of your life. I can buy into that move. It seems like most of our beliefs (especially ones that have a negative effect on us) lose their impact over time.

I have another move I'm going to make later on (I want to wait for more people to join in). In the meantime, maybe have a think about what your position entails. Right now, it looks like the value of believing something that is true just isn't doing any work at all. But this doesn't seem right - we want to believe things that are true. In other words, we don't want to be deceived. How do we reconcile this intuition with your position?

Well, i think that P being false, it's the best way, some situations, you just can't do anything, so, not knowing about P would be the best, since you would be happy, but if it's a situation you CAN do anything about it, it would be better if P is true, since you would do something about it to resolve the problem, but since most situations you can't do anything about it, it would be better thinking P is false, since you'd be happy anyway, but if it's something you CAN'T do anything about, and you, somehow know that horrible thing, you should just ignore it.

Doing this case by case is impossible I agree, but it's necessary, now taking your second point of the stimulation chamber you have to ask could you re-enter the chamber after you left.

I'm going to half backtrack here. Staying in the tank allows you to have an almost perfect life, wonderful surroundings, stimulation, little to no responsibilities and little to no worries. This is a haven for your body and mind. No reason for you to leave...

Half backtracks again. But there is. To see the world, to meet people, to experience life and to be. To exist in the annals of history. You may find the world harsh, dark and unforgiving but it is our world and we should embrace it. To leave your perfect world and see the real one allows you to see the grime and the dirt but from this low you can experience the highs in a better fashion, a more knowledgeable point of view. The highs are higher when there are lows to contend with. So I would know and leave the room as it would be a better state of affairs.

The major point you are not considering is that there could be nothing you can do about P.

@Moegreche

If you believe that P is false, you're going be incorrect but happy.

By saying the word "believe", it is implied that I would already have knowledge about P. With the lie I carry to myself (P is false), I will also be carrying false happiness.

By accepting the truth that P is correct, I will have known the truth (P is correct) and carried a truthful misery with it.

I would be blind and unwise to not believe P. I would also certainly have a narrow point of view. I would also carry the burden of these things while carrying the burden of not believing in P despite the fact I know about it.

Therefore, the better state of affairs is believing that P is true but being miserable.

Seeing as that both sides of the argument have pros and cons, I will also try to weigh them out for you.

Affair: Believing P is true, but being miserable.
Pros:
- You know the truth.
- You have a greater perspective of things.
- You may adjust to the truth if you have to.
- You will not waste your time anymore on something that isn't real.
- You are facing your problem.

Cons:
- You will be miserable.
- Change of regular routine
- Spending time on something new.

Affair: Not believing in P, but happy.
Pros:
- You get to stay (questionably) Happy.
- You get to keep on doing the regular things.
- You still know the truth

Cons:
- Your happiness is questionable because you already know about P, yet you choose to ignore it.
- You're going to be living with a lie.
- Narrow Point of View
- Running away from the problem.
- You're wasting your time on something that isn't a real source of happiness.

To conclude this:
Though both situations are pretty bad, Believing in P, yet being miserable has less cons. It also has more pros. Therefore it is better.

We can assume that P is a bad thing, but no matter what P is, sadly, we know it's true. In my opinion, I think it is better not to know about the bad things that will occur in the future of our lives, as all it will do it worry us, and cause us to stop being able to living the life that we are currently living.

This is in general, of course. For example, let's say that P was cancer, but in an early stage, it would be good to know about P since we could stop it, and although this might make us depressed at the moment, luckily, it will likely be stopped, and in the long run, things will turn out to be better.

If most humans were given the choice to know P, I think that the majority of people would choose to know what P is due to curiosity, but in the majority of cases, it would lead to a worse life than if you didn't know what P was.

In conclusion:

It is better not to know what P is since you guarantee yourself a happy life, and choosing to know what P is, involves too much risk.

It does matter what P is since if it's only a temporary thing, and something can be done about it to make you happy again, it will make you happy in the long run.

Very simple form:

Happiness = Good
Misery = Bad

Now remember in the opening question, I've stipulated that you can't really do anything about it. Believing that P makes you miserable - end of story.

Got it. Still matters what P is in my opinion though. I'll explain why:

I can buy into that move. It seems like most of our beliefs (especially ones that have a negative effect on us) lose their impact over time.

This would happen initially. In the previous example with the date of death, while at first you would be probably shocked, the negative impact on you would admittedly begin to wear off slowly after some days. However when this date draws near, won't you begin to panic again? Won't the negative effects start to rise once more?

To make it about something less important, imagine P is a massive spoiler about one of your favorite TV shows. It is extremely hard to forget a spoiler as you probably know and while at first you will learn to deal with it, you will remember it every time you watch an episode of the show and when it becomes public!

Of course, not all things that could be P are like this. The negative impact of some of them never stops wearing off over time like you said (especially in the cancer case or the sensory deprivation tank). So we reach the original position: Depends what P is.

Also, don't forget that it depends on the type of person who has to choose between believing and not believing P.

(I'm a little bit late, but here's my position): I believe that it is better to know P in almost all cases.

The Pursuit of Happiness
On a purely theoretical basis, one might argue that not knowing P will bring you more happiness, which is a reasonably desirable objective. However, it is important to realize that happiness is not the only objective that's desirable. For example, it's possible to take psychoactive drugs that make the user (continuously) immeasurably happy. However, wasting away as a drug addict is an existence that most people consider to be undesirable(for good reason). Clearly, this example shows that there are things more important than just happiness. Any good decision has to clearly account for the principle that happiness is not the only important value.

What you don't know can't hurt you....right?
Consider the ostrich, which sticks its head into the ground to evade predators(note 1). The ostrich would probably be very upset if it knew a predator was trying to make dinner out of it. However, no matter how enjoyable head-sticking might be, the ostrich will inevitably be turned into a tasty meal. On the other hand, if the same ostrich attempt to make a run, it has a chance to make it out alive, something that most ostriches probably value, regardless of how miserable exercise may be.

In real life, we can make changes to our environment(note 2). Of course, this isn't really possible without some information about what's going on. In addition, the environment generally affects you, whether or not you want it to(ie ostrich + predator). By having additional information, you often gain the ability to change your environment. Is it possible to cook up scenarios where this more information =/= more ability for change? Sure. But there's almost always something you can do - change your own reactions.

Reacting wisely
Oftentimes, things in the environment can't be changed - terminal cancers, supernovas, etc. But what can be changed(almost always) is how one reacts to the environment. It's possible to react in a hateful, self-destructive manner that creates negative consequences, but it's also possible to react in a positive, constructive manner that mitigates the effect of the change. What you do has a dramatic difference on your happiness.

Obligatory Terminal Cancer Example
In our hypothetical world(note 3), Person A and person B both have incurable terminal cancer - they will both die in 6 months(say July 31st). In January, A is diagnosed with cancer, but B's doctor misses it. A initially is quite sad - he spends some time lamenting his eminent demise. But then, after a while, he finally realizes(note 4) that what he's doing isn't particularly helpful. He retires, calls up his family and friends, and prepares his will and bucket list. As his friends and family enjoy the last of their time with him, he is touched by their love for him, but ultimately is a little sad by the fact that he will soon be dead. When July rolls around, A's friends and family surround him as he slowly dies in the hospital. When he dies, all of his affairs are in order, and his passing is relatively peaceful. In contrast, B checks into the hospital on July 28th and quickly wastes away until he dies. B's family and friends are all shocked by his sudden passing, and no one is prepared. His heirs then begin a fight for his inheritance, which quickly turns ugly in the absence of a will. Years later, A's family remembers their last moments(somewhat) fondly, while B's family can only remember how fast B died, and how they regret not interacting more positively with B.
In this example, both B and his family didn't know, while A and his family were aware of a very unpleasant fact. Yet, A's wise reaction, combined with his knowledge, led to a much more positive outcome for everyone involved.

Santa Claus and spoilers
So when is it better to know nothing? Is it possible that you can't even change your own reactions? Well, two examples are Santa Claus and movie/book spoilers. In both these examples, there's not only so much you can do to forget the information - and knowing won't necessarily give you the opportunity to make physical changes. At first, it might seem that not knowing these things has significant merit. But then, a deeper look might yield better understanding. In the case of Santa Claus, the damage dealt is to your sense of imagination and sense of wonder. With movie spoilers, you don't get the same opportunity to be scared, or become as engaged with the show. But there's a lot of ways to be scared, to imagine, or to be thrilled. Santa Claus or that TV series isn't the only way to get that emotion. It's possible to acknowledge that Mr. Claus isn't real - but exercise that imagination elsewhere and eventually make an amazing invention. It's possible to get spoiled, but still remain interested in TV shows. After all, you can still get a good amount of happiness from knowing - placebos still work fairly well when people know that they're fake(note 5). In return for the minor loss, you gain the ability to make changes later down the road, and we've seen how those changes can make a big difference. Are there scenarios where the loss might be too severe? - sure. Are they by far extreme and rare? - probably.

In summary, knowing more is almost always better. Very often, that knowledge allows you to make meaningful changes. Although these changes might only be mental, they can make a huge difference. Even if there is no apparent mental/physical benefit for knowing, the losses aren't terrible - you generally don't lose that much, and that knowledge might one day help you.

(note 1): ostriches don't actually stick their heads in the ground to avoid predators, though it's commonly believed to be so. The point stands though, doing such a maneuver is not very effective.
(note 2): Unless you're a complete fatalist, of course. But then, this discussion doesn't really make sense to you, because the misery you feel is already predetermined, and hypothetical questions like this one don't make sense.
(note 3): It's conceivable that this could happen, but this is not based on any single real story.
(note 4): Hey, who knows; perhaps he read my excellent post
(note 5): Seriously, yeah. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015591 . To be a little fair though, Plos one isn't exactly the most reputable journal, but it was done by Harvard researchers, and it's something like 60% with knowing placebo vs. 35% without, which is fairly hefty.

If you know what P is, in most of the cases, your happiness will be over, it's better not to know what P is, but there are some situations it'd be better to know what P is, it would depend on the situation, but you wouldn't be able to know if it's better know what P is without knowing what P is, so if you have choice, always choose NOT to know what P is, since you'd be happy...

Hi everyone!

So first off, I'm deeply impressed with both the quality and diversity of the arguments on offer. I hope hoping to be able to engage with all of you, but I had something urgent come up last week that I'm still attending to.

The good news is, you've all soundly defeated me. In fact, I've all but given up on the thought that believing something that is false carries disvalue on its own. In other words, it seems like we need to assess that false belief in light of an entire state of affairs and then determine whether that state of affairs itself has value or not.

So with that in mind (and also the fact that I've suffered a crushing defeat) everyone who has participated in round 4 will receive a shiny quest (if you haven't already received the quest) as well as a merit!

Also, if you would like feedback on your argument or would like to continue the conversation, please do let me know on my profile. And not to worry - Round 5 of the Great Debates will be starting very soon!

something urgent

Awesome debate!
good job Moe!

Very good debate. I wish you had the time to continue. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on the matter.

Anyway, good job. Can't wait for round 5.

When is nbr. 5 coming? I will spectate and maybe post an answer or two.

I will let you guys know when Round 5 is coming. I was hoping for this weekend, but I'm still dealing with the work-related stuff that interfered with Round 4.

Though I suppose I can see what my calendar looks like in a few hours for doing a proper signup and debate for this weekend. So keep an eye out!