Facebook PixelCan we bet on Pascal’s wager for more practical decisions?
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Create newCreate new
EverythingEverything
Sessions onlySessions only
Ideas onlyIdeas only
Guide
TourRulesAbout
Brainstorming session

Can we bet on Pascal’s wager for more practical decisions?

Image credit: @jchihos https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/dbd6d0b4-10ab-4ec1-9b97-73f4570d3dbc

Loading...
Anja M
Anja M Sep 02, 2020
philosophyartificial intelligencedecision makingepistemology
2
Creative contributions

What would Pascal say?

Loading...
J
Juran Sep 14, 2020
Loading...
Anja M
Anja M5 months ago
Sorry for a later answer, but I will try to see if I grasped it clearly. :) Indeed, I agree with you, Pascal did not try to make believing or non-believing in God an easy task by posing this choice chart. Also, he was into solving gambling problems, and that's how theory of probability rose. I am mentioning this to highlight the practical side of it. If we acknowledge this, maybe it would be a bit easier to untangle the problem of PW and God. I think you are also right on that point, the clash between the scientific development and religious matters. And at first site, this proposition can seem beneficial: "I have nothing to lose if I believe.", but then "matters of the hearth" appear, and although there may be much, as we know, they are not enough to make you believe in God, and really shouldn't be. Again, that people are freer today can be contentious. Yes, there are many liberties one couldn't have dreamed of in the medieval times, but overall, when it comes to the questions of religion and generally, "thinking with one's own head", well, there are too many new restraints that don't seem that way. For example, but this is very broadly speaking, once religious' dogma is now a scientific one, for better and worse. Now when it comes to science and PW: usually, due to the complexity of matters, it isn't used for decision-making just like that. However, since science is never really conclusive, and we have pressing matters (like the ones I mentioned: yes/no AI, for example) we wage for that "leap of faith" (pun not intended) based on the calculations we have so far + the potential outcomes/hopes out-waging each other. So do you think we should exclude it or similar mechanisms in such processes, as well?
Loading...
J
Juran5 months ago
The proposed idea definitely has a solid basis, but I think the problem with e.g. the AI, Internet privacy, and gene editing is that we cannot set the wage as the Pascal did. God was a symbol of salvation, infinite life, and unquestionable kindness. The above mentioned are not. Face masks are a bit less questionable, but still not a safe bet (respiratory problems, CO2, etc.). As long as we are not 100% sure of the subject "nature" and the outcomes, we should, in my opinion, try to use one of the alternative decision-making systems used in business (https://www.atlassian.com/work-management/strategic-planning/decision-making/models).

On vaccines and face masks

Loading...
Anja M
Anja M Sep 02, 2020

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or

or

Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments