Thought experiment

[andyandy]

Suppose you get the following proposal from an eccentric billionaire:

"Toxin X is a substance that will make you violently ill for a few hours. However, it has no long term effects of any kind. As an experiment in psychology, I'm offering you a million dollars if tonight at midnight you fully intend to drink toxin X by tomorrow at noon. You don't actually have to drink the toxin; all you have to do is to intend to drink it. Your intention will be tested by a device similar to a polygraph which my people have developed and which has been shown to be 100% accurate. If at midnight you have the intention, a million will be wired to your bank account. The only other conditions are that you are to make no bets, do anything that will cause you to become irrational, or arrange for any way to avoid the effects of the toxin."

Suppose you decide that being ill for one day is a reasonable price to pay for a million dollars. Your first thought is to therefore agree to the proposal. It then occurs to you that you won't even have to become sick in order to win the money. All you have to do is to intend to drink the toxin. You don't actually have to carry out your intention.

But now if you know ahead of time that you don't actually have to drink the toxin, then you can't really intend to drink it. So you tell yourself you really do have to drink it. But then if at midnight you really did intend to drink the toxin, and you got the million, then come the next day you would no longer have any reason to drink it: you've already been paid and drinking the toxin would make you unnecessarily sick.

Is there any way for you to win the money?


I've not linked it, so that you can't immediately look up what has already been written on it.....without doing any googling, what do you think?

[Earthborn]

I think it nicely shows that the concept of "intent" is problematic. Whether you "intend" to exhibit any behaviour can only be determined after you have exhibited that behaviour, which means it cannot meaningfully be claimed to precede the behaviour. A machine that can determine intent ahead of intended behaviour with 100% accuracy is therefore an impossibility.

[Apathia]

This is strange.
I can intend to drink it, fully intending to drink it, and puking three hours after I drink it.
People sincerely intend to do stuff all the time that they are reluctant or even afraid to carry out. Marriage for example.

[Kopji]

I tend to agree on the difficultly of creating puzzles based around knowing intent.

The puzzle tries to raise a question about knowledge of 'the truth' being a real good. Would the drinker be better off not knowing? If a person is better off not knowing, maybe the value of knowing something as it is, cannot be axiomatic.

There are implications to accepting ignorance as a virtue that I tend to resist. I would be far more likely to accept that knowing 'true knowledge' of something was a 'real good', if not an axiom. Humm...

But now if you know ahead of time that you don't actually have to drink the toxin, then you can't really intend to drink it.
This does not seem to follow and might be fallacious reasoning. I don't see why I can't intend to drink it, even though I understand that I do not need to drink it.

So you tell yourself you really do have to drink it. But then if at midnight you really did intend to drink the toxin, and you got the million,

Ok, after midnight is the next day and I have my million because I had the right intention. The intent meter even said so. So far so good, I have my million.

...then come the next day you would no longer have any reason to drink it: you've already been paid and drinking the toxin would make you unnecessarily sick.

Drinking the toxin might be eccentric but not irrational. I intended to drink the toxin last night and the intent detector said so. After all, I would not have my million if my intention was not already judged right.

I don't need to drink toxin in order to win, which I already did. But suppose I will still drink it as evidence that my intent was true. All that says is that I'm skeptical of an intent detector and I want to prove my intent with evidence in case the eccentric billionaire changes his mind and tries to take my million back. It would be hard to prove I had no intention about drinking the toxin after I actually drank it, so that seems at least rational.

[Loss Leader]

This was dealt with extensively in my first year of law school under the umbrella title "inchoate offenses." Suffice to say that I know the answer - or, at least, the practical work-around that the law has devised. I'm not going to tell you, though, because I spent $100,000.00 and I'm not giving it away for free.

[Sagger]

You would need to go ahead and drink the toxin anyways because it is the only way to really express that your intention was legitimate. It was in taking the easy way out (not taking the toxin because it was allowed) that would cause you to fail this test.

[tkingdoll]

You would need to go ahead and drink the toxin anyways because it is the only way to really express that your intention was legitimate. It was in taking the easy way out (not taking the toxin because it was allowed) that would cause you to fail this test.

I agree with this assessment. You'd have to work it backwards, starting with drinking the toxin, which is the fuel for your intent to drink it. The last link in the chain to work backwards from is drinking it, not not drinking it, so you have to drink it.

Winning the money is not dependent on anything but your willingness to be ill for a day. If you wouldn't swap a day's health for a million, then you can't win this, even if you believe you don't actually have to drink the toxin.

So, providing you actually drink it (and are not merely prepared to drink it), then you will win.

[Z]

If the intention detector is 100% correct, then you either cannot win the money, or you will drink the toxin. Otherwise, your intention is false, and the detector will know this.

[DickK]

If the intention detector is 100% correct, then you either cannot win the money, or you will drink the toxin. Otherwise, your intention is false, and the detector will know this. I'm pretty sure there's a false dichotomy here. You may truly intend to drink the toxin at midnight, the detector confirms this and you get the million. At 12.01 you, acutely allergic to, say, nuts, unwittingly eat something with nuts in, your throat swells and you lapse into a coma, are carted off to hospital for emergency treatment which is successful, but takes 24 hours for you to recover consciousness. The noon deadline passes with no toxin administered and the million in your poke.

I can't see any of the rules being broken here.

Loss Leader's "inchoate offense" provides the out, I believe.

[Jekyll]

I think this is a variant on N****** 'paradox'.

To make the problem clearer, the money will be sent to your bank account 12 hours before you drink the poison or not all. What happens to you after this time does not effect the outcome.

Suppose someone you know to be utterly truthful would come up to just before you drink the poison and say "Don't drink the poison, you got the money." or "Don't drink the poison, you've already failed the test."

Regardless of what your intent was there is no point in drinking the poison at this point. However, after the intent test, even if no one trustworthy says anything to you, you still know that one of the above statements is true and there is no point in drinking the poison now.

So do you decide to drink or not?

[andyandy]

ok, so this is Kavka's toxin puzzle thought experiment....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavka's_toxin_puzzle

now the wiki conclusion is above my head

Non-cognitivism vs. Moral realism
The nature of this paradox is grounded in a non-cognitivist ethical theory, presupposing that there is no objective moral law. In an attempt to deny this paradox, we would need to presuppose a theory of moral realism, in which objective moral truths do exist and we could cite various internal incentives toward the fulfillment of our intention. Examples of such incentives include the guilt that would result from failing yourself by not following through on your intention (to the extent that an intention is a promise made to oneself), or a categorically commanded duty not to lie, including to oneself. Whether or not such an approach would be successful is certainly open to debate, as are the conclusions of the paradox in general.

if someone wants to explain how this relates to the experiment, I'd be greatful......:)

[Apathia]

ok, so this is Kavka's toxin puzzle thought experiment....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavka's_toxin_puzzle

now the wiki conclusion is above my head



if someone wants to explain how this relates to the experiment, I'd be greatful......:)

It seems to me that one needs to do an awful lot of reading into to get this into the so-called experiment.
You need to enter the wonderful world of academic obscurantism that is way off the path of practical thinking.
There is no puzzle.
There is no paradox in the thought experiment.

Did you promise you'd drink the poison? That might entail a moral issue.
But that's not stipulated in the experiment.

Gosh, this is like those silly "zombie" arguments we had going a while back.
If you want an actual puzzle, play Sudoku.

[Jekyll]

Ahh, I was going for Newcomb's paradox, which is a bit less silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

[andyandy]

Ahh, I was going for Newcomb's paradox, which is a bit less silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

What a great paradox......philosophy at its confusing finest :)

[Z]

I'm pretty sure there's a false dichotomy here. You may truly intend to drink the toxin at midnight, the detector confirms this and you get the million. At 12.01 you, acutely allergic to, say, nuts, unwittingly eat something with nuts in, your throat swells and you lapse into a coma, are carted off to hospital for emergency treatment which is successful, but takes 24 hours for you to recover consciousness. The noon deadline passes with no toxin administered and the million in your poke.

I can't see any of the rules being broken here.

Loss Leader's "inchoate offense" provides the out, I believe.

In that scenario, yes, I agree. But circumstances aside (for example, you're kept in a 'safe' environment the whole time), you'll either win the money and drink the toxin, or you won't.

[Kopji]

ok, so this is Kavka's toxin puzzle thought experiment....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavka's_toxin_puzzle

now the wiki conclusion is above my head



if someone wants to explain how this relates to the experiment, I'd be greatful......:)

Sounds like crap, even if it's on wiki.

[adler]

I already drank it and have booked a trip to Amsterdam for the next day, reserved a hooker and pound of good hash. exercise done. I intend to have a good time.

[Meadmaker]

I would win the money, and here's how I would do it.

I would immediately contact a friend, and draw up a contract that said, "If offered a chance to drink toxin X, I will give my friend one million dollars if I turn down the chance."

In other words, to demonstrate that my intent is genuine, I will create a condition that makes it certain that there really is a penalty for failing to drink the toxin. Now, "intent" is not enough to win the money. I still have to do it, which would make my intent genuine.

[Loss Leader]

Here's what the law has to say on the subject:

Quite some time ago, the courts ran into the problem of intention. First of all, it is impossible to know what is in a person's mind. In fact, people can often have conflicting emotions. A lost wallet with a hundred dollars in it can cause a person quite the dillemna. Second, even if a person at one point intends to do a criminal act, if he changes his mind and decides not to why should we punnish him? After all, fear of punnishment may have been the motivating factor in which case the system worked and we should all be quite proud of him.

The law has solved this by decreeing that intention alone will not be enough to prove a person's guilt of anything. What is needed is some sign that this person really would have committed the criminal act if given the chance. So the law requires some action towards the crime. If I want to kill my boss and I tell everybody I'm going to, I've done nothing illegal. If I go to the store and buy a shotgun legally, I've probably done nothing illegal. If I load the gun, I'm still OK. The moment I aim it at my boss, I've committed a crime. I've taken an action with no innocent explanation in furtherance of an illegal goal. That's the crime.

This poison hypothetical is not unfamiliar to television viewers. It confronted a character on one of the most popular TV shows of its time. In an episode of Friends, Ross needed to prove how sorry he was to Rachel. She demanded, on Joey's reccomendation, that he drink a cup of fat. He promised to - that was not enough. He held the glass - that was not enough. He put it to his mouth - not enough. Not until the fat touched his lips was Rachel satisfied that his intentions were pure. Sadly, they broke up a little while later.

Those worried about Ross and Rachel, though:

Rachel doesn't go to Paris and they get back together in the last episode.

[RandFan]

ok, so this is Kavka's toxin puzzle thought experiment....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavka's_toxin_puzzle

now the wiki conclusion is above my head

if someone wants to explain how this relates to the experiment, I'd be greatful......:) I'll try. If morals are absolute then there is no paradox. Assuming moral absolutes you either intend to drink the poison or you don't. The proof of your intention are the results. If morals are not absolute then there is a paradox.


Now, we need to consider whether or not it is possible to form an intention to perform a future act, given the foreknowledge that after forming the intention you will have no incentive to fulfill your intention. In fact, a person X who attempts this, will have very good reasons not to.
As soon as X intends to drink the toxin, X can collect the reward—X does not actually have to drink it. So, once the time has come to drink the toxin, the reward will already have been collected and the only thing that will result from drinking the toxin will be extreme discomfort—having received the reward, no incentive remains to drink the toxin. Given this foreknowledge, it seems unreasonable for X to drink the toxin. But considering that X can come to these same logical conclusions, X cannot logically form the intention to begin with.

[Meadmaker]

Hmm.. I see that one of those conditions was "make no bets", which was probably intended to cover my contract as well.

One way or another, I would have to come up with some other reason to drink the toxin, otherwise, I would say that it's impossible to win.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Of course it's possible to win. The contest relies on a device, and all devices can be manipulated.

[Kopji]

Humm.

If the intent is to make this an argument about morality it must ignore a concept of mostly eastern philosophy that is often expressed as "no mind": It is possible to decide and act without moral attachment.

We are being asked to ignore that and concede an assertion that morality must be part of this choice. This begs the question.


if you know ahead of time that you don't actually have to drink the toxin,
then you can't really intend to drink it.

I can intend to drink the toxin regardless of my knowledge about not actually needing to. There is no moral issue, unless we want it there.

[RandFan]

Humm.

If the intent is to make this an argument about morality it must ignore a concept of mostly eastern philosophy that is often expressed as "no mind": It is possible to decide and act without moral attachment. The purpose isn't to make it an argument about morality. It simply illustrates the changing nature of the thought experiment based on perception. If your world view is one where there are no moral ambiguities then there is no paradox. If morality doesn't enter the equation then there is.

We are being asked to ignore that and concede an assertion that morality must be part of this choice. Not at all. The thought experiment works without any such assumption.

I can intend to drink the toxin regardless of my knowledge about not actually needing to. There is no moral issue, unless we want it there. Exactly, or to put it more succinctly, unless it is already there to begin with. Many people do believe in such moral absolutes, for them it IS there.

If you wish to leave morality out of the experiment you are more than free to do so (assuming free will of course ;)). The thought experiment does not rely on morality. That is just another aspect and a practical one I might add for those who think in such absolutes to perhaps see things a bit differently.

[UndercoverElephant]

Is there any way for you to win the money?



You can win the money if you are genuinely suicidal or masochistic.

[Kopji]

The purpose isn't to make it an argument about morality. It simply illustrates the changing nature of the thought experiment based on perception. If your world view is one where there are no moral ambiguities then there is no paradox. If morality doesn't enter the equation then there is.

Not at all. The thought experiment works without any such assumption.

Exactly, or to put it more succinctly, unless it is already there to begin with. Many people do believe in such moral absolutes, for them it IS there.

If you wish to leave morality out of the experiment you are more than free to do so (assuming free will of course ;)). The thought experiment does not rely on morality. That is just another aspect and a practical one I might add for those who think in such absolutes to perhaps see things a bit differently.

Ok I don't understand then, but I think we agree on that last point.

Whether or not such an approach would be successful is certainly open to debate, as are the conclusions of the paradox in general.
ibid - wiki

This seems to admit that maybe this is all open to debate. But it is only open to debate if I accept their false epistemology. Whatz the value of that?

[President Bush]

If I'm not mistaken, then I already drank it.

[Beerina]

Is there any way for you to win the money?


I've not linked it, so that you can't immediately look up what has already been written on it.....without doing any googling, what do you think?

I'd simply plan on actually drinking it. After all, I'd gladly be violently sick for an entire week for a measly $50,000, and you can take my a**l virginity while you're at it. One million for a few hours or a day ain't no thing.

[Wudang]

The problem for me is that it embodies a rather outdated idea of the "self" as a unified thing rather than warring community of modules each pushing its own agenda.

[RandFan]

The problem for me is that it embodies a rather outdated idea of the "self" as a unified thing rather than warring community of modules each pushing its own agenda. Bingo, yes.

[drkitten]

If the intention detector is 100% correct, then you either cannot win the money, or you will drink the toxin.

You've never seen people change their minds?

I fully intend to get the final version of that paper I promised the guy in Florida out today. Unless something happens and I have to shelve it for now.....

[UndercoverElephant]

After all, I'd gladly be violently sick for an entire week for a measly $50,000, and you can take my a**l virginity while you're at it.

Are you male or female? :(

[Z]

You've never seen people change their minds?

I fully intend to get the final version of that paper I promised the guy in Florida out today. Unless something happens and I have to shelve it for now.....

It's been my experience that, if you really get down to it, people don't change their minds. They pay lip-service to an intention, maybe even delude themselves for a time - but if you really intend to get that paper done, you will. Unforeseen circumstances - like sudden floods, etc - are a different situation.

And for such a short-term intention - there isn't likely to be any unforeseeable circumstance to prevent you from taking this discomforting but otherwise harmless toxin.

I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's been my experience that, if you really get down to it, people don't change their minds. They pay lip-service to an intention, maybe even delude themselves for a time - but if you really intend to get that paper done, you will.

Either you are psychic or you already have created the 100% accurate intention-reading machine. To say that someone never really intended something because they did not eventually do it is unfalsifiable.

Unforeseen circumstances - like sudden floods, etc - are a different situation.
I am assuming by different you mean that given such circumstances, one can have had an intent not followed through on, but correct me if I read you wrong. If that is the case, why would not reconsidering be an unforeseen circumstance. In the thought experiment as described* there are 12 hours between intent and action, plenty of time for the human brain to re-evaluate and change a course of action.

*This is a complete aside, but the thought experiment, as written, is poorly posed. Taken pedantically enough, it is actually impossible to not win the money, assuming ability to follow instructions. But that's another matter altogether. Just something I noticed.

[Z]

Either you are psychic or you already have created the 100% accurate intention-reading machine. To say that someone never really intended something because they did not eventually do it is unfalsifiable.


I am assuming by different you mean that given such circumstances, one can have had an intent not followed through on, but correct me if I read you wrong. If that is the case, why would not reconsidering be an unforeseen circumstance. In the thought experiment as described* there are 12 hours between intent and action, plenty of time for the human brain to re-evaluate and change a course of action.

*This is a complete aside, but the thought experiment, as written, is poorly posed. Taken pedantically enough, it is actually impossible to not win the money, assuming ability to follow instructions. But that's another matter altogether. Just something I noticed.

But an intention - as someone else put it, a promise to self - to take an action is something that, if truly done, would preclude any reconsideration. In fact, it would be the primary deciding factor, if the intention were true.

"Well, I could change my mind now, since I already won the money; but I intended to take the toxin and I will follow through on my intention."

Any other statement tells me the person had a false intention, which would be detected by the machine. Simple enough.

[drkitten]

But an intention - as someone else put it, a promise to self - to take an action is something that, if truly done, would preclude any reconsideration. In fact, it would be the primary deciding factor, if the intention were true.

That almost certainly says something about your personal ethics, and also about your personal definition of "intent." Neither of which generalize across the universe, unfortunately.

I think that the phrasing of "intention" as "a promise to self" is needlessly and divisively strong. Certainly no courtroom would use that strong a formulation in trying to decide whether or not the element of "intent" was there in a trial for attempted-whatever. The OED defines it much more simply and more lightly as akin to "wanting" or "goal" ("volition which one is minded to carry out"), which I think is a much more accurate statement of the meaning as it's generally used. There are lots of things which I am minded to do -- unless something else comes up, or I change my mind,.


"Well, I could change my mind now, since I already won the money; but I intended to take the toxin and I will follow through on my intention."

Any other statement tells me the person had a false intention,

... and that is why I reject the scenario posed by the opening post. Because there's no way that one could build an objectively valid "intent" detector, any more than one could build an objectively valid "sex appeal" detector or "deliciousness" detector. Because what you consider to be "intent" has little to do with what I consider it to be, which it turn probably differs from the opinions of the Marquis and the Elephant.

[Z]

I agree with that, Dr. Kitten.

That's basically the point I'm trying to get at - if an 'objective' intent detector existed, that implies that intention is something solid and detectable. As I understand the idea of 'intent', such a detector could not fail if it worked at all, and free will would be a demonstrable illusion as well.

I could say I intended to drink the toxin - could even make myself believe it as well. But if I am aware that, after getting paid, I can just 'change my mind' and not drink it, then either I'm still going to drink the toxin, or my 'intention' to drink it was false anyway. The real case would be that I intended to fool the intent detector, then not drink the poison by 'changing my mind'. So what's the real intention, then?

You have to take into account every factor in that decision process, to determine if the person ACTUALLY intended to drink the toxin.

[drkitten]

I could say I intended to drink the toxin - could even make myself believe it as well. But if I am aware that, after getting paid, I can just 'change my mind' and not drink it, then either I'm still going to drink the toxin, or my 'intention' to drink it was false anyway.

I still think you'reascribing a degree of unchangeability to "intent" that shouldn't be there.

A real-life counterexample : surrogate motherhood. I assume you're familiar with the practice of infertile couples asking a young woman to bear a child for them, usually via artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization? Needless to say, the legal aspects of such an agreement can be .... complex, and I will defer to the actual members of the bar on the details. But one thing that's come out over and over in the court system is the tendency of many of the young women involved to change their minds and to refuse to hand over the child, even when the contract says that she must.

Obviously, at the time she signed the surrogacy agreement, she "intended" to hand over the child an had no "intention" of keeping it, or she wouldn't have signed a contract that wouldn't let her do so. But somehow in the intervening months, she changed her mind (and I could go on in detail about pregnancy hormones and "maternal instinct" but won't), to the point that she is now willing to undertake expensive legal action to break a contract that -- under your analysis -- she shouldn't have signed in the first place.

If you can change your mind in nine months, why not twenty-four hours?

[Jeff Corey]

I intended to reply to this, but changed my "mind".

[chriswl]

So this hinges on the phrase, in the original problem:

"Your intention will be tested by a device similar to a polygraph which my people have developed and which has been shown to be 100% accurate."

How could could you test whether it is it 100% accurate without making the assumption that intentions were always carried through? Maybe the machine should really be described as a 100% accurate predictor of your actions, rather than a deducer of your intentions?

[Z]

I still think you'reascribing a degree of unchangeability to "intent" that shouldn't be there.

A real-life counterexample : surrogate motherhood. I assume you're familiar with the practice of infertile couples asking a young woman to bear a child for them, usually via artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization? Needless to say, the legal aspects of such an agreement can be .... complex, and I will defer to the actual members of the bar on the details. But one thing that's come out over and over in the court system is the tendency of many of the young women involved to change their minds and to refuse to hand over the child, even when the contract says that she must.

Obviously, at the time she signed the surrogacy agreement, she "intended" to hand over the child an had no "intention" of keeping it, or she wouldn't have signed a contract that wouldn't let her do so. But somehow in the intervening months, she changed her mind (and I could go on in detail about pregnancy hormones and "maternal instinct" but won't), to the point that she is now willing to undertake expensive legal action to break a contract that -- under your analysis -- she shouldn't have signed in the first place.

If you can change your mind in nine months, why not twenty-four hours?

Note bolded piece above. Bingo.

That's my take on it. I'm very draconian with law. IMHO, abortions should only be legal under medical necessity - not for convenience. Didn't want a baby? Shoulda bought some batteries. Same with most laws. You take the risk, you pay the price. You want to give the fruit of your loins over to complete strangers? Deal with it.

I think true intention, though, is a deeper thought process than most people go through. Those young idiots who want to give birth and hand off their child - then 'change their minds' - haven't thought it through. So they have no 'intention', that far in advance.

But, as you say, my concept is probably a lot more solid and unrelenting than most.

(No, I don't believe in forgiveness, either...)

[Z]

So this hinges on the phrase, in the original problem:



How could could you test whether it is it 100% accurate without making the assumption that intentions were always carried through? Maybe the machine should really be described as a 100% accurate predictor of your actions, rather than a deducer of your intentions?


Thus, the weakness of the OP - as pointed out by Dr. K.

And no, Jeff, you didn't intend to reply - or you would have.

[Ceritus]

I would drink it regardless of the outcome. If I got the million I would still drink it and if I didn't I would drink it as well.

Violently throwing up everywhere could be kinda fun especially in the right environment.

I'd win.

Anyone eaten a tablespoon of cinnaminn recently?

Wouldn't it just come down to the person's word?

To drink the toxin is the job and I am going to get paid to do the job but I just get paid in advance.

It isn't to hard delluding oneself into doing something they don't need to do.

How many people smoke tobacco?

Besides the best part about being sick is the first few days of getting better. I tell you one thing, I've gone years without being sick and never thought twice about how great it is to breathe without constriction but when I get sick and then better I really enjoy being healthier.

[RandFan]

You've never seen people change their minds? Yes, but the rub, IMO, lies in why you change your mind? If you intend to change your mind then it can be argued you never intended to drink it in the first place. If you change your mind once you have the money then it is quite likely that you thought the whole thing through and decided before hand to change your intent once the payoff occurred.

But the thought experiment really tells us next to nothing about intent. IMHO, human intent is seldom so binary. I want and don't want many things for many different reasons.

[drkitten]

If you intend to change your mind then it can be argued you never intended to drink it in the first place.

That's part of where the problem comes in.

You (and zaayr are arguing -- I like your phrasing that "If you change your mind once you have the money then it is quite likely that you thought the whole thing through and decided before hand to change your intent" -- that "changing one's mind" and "intending beforehand to change one's mind" are definitionally equivalent.

In your world (and zaayr's), all wrongful deaths are first degree murder.

This, unfortunately, makes both you and zaayr obviously living in a counterfactual world. In reality, people will often change their minds without previously intending to -- a child climbs up to the high dive platform and then chickens out at the top. DisneyWorld has "cop out" exits at the front of the lines, for people who waited an hour and a half to get to the roller coaster cars.

I think it's fairly clear that anyone who gets in a line, knowing that it will be ninety minutes until they get to the front, and then waits all the way through, is at that time intending to ride the coaster. I think it's also clear that anyone who doesn't ride the coaster doesn't intend to ride the coaster. So something had to change in that ninety minutes.....

[Z]

I disagree. The intention was never there. The person got in line but never intended to go through with it. They may have fooled themselves to a point -

Hmmm... Perhaps my problem is, I refuse to recognize a 'weak intention'. I have to think on that. IMHO, an intention is something you will do if at all in your power to do so. If you intend to do something, only an external force can stop you from doing so. Otherwise - you're not intending to do it.

[drkitten]

I disagree. The intention was never there.

Yup. That's more or less what I was saying, that you thought that way.

And that's where your little train of thought passes the junction heading away from Reality Station.



IMHO, an intention is something you will do if at all in your power to do so. If you intend to do something, only an external force can stop you from doing so. Otherwise - you're not intending to do it.

... passing the transfer point to Semantics of Standard English en route.

There's no polite way to put it, I'm afraid.....

[Z]

I don't know, Doc... that's the reality I've observed.

(And with this many housemates, it's not like I'm isolated or anything...)

[RandFan]

In your world (and zaayr's), all wrongful deaths are first degree murder. I think you need to read my posts a bit closer. I made my postion crystal clear.

RandFan
IMHO, human intent is seldom so binary

Human greed being what it is and knowing that you can avoid an adverse condition simply by changing your mind it is not unreasonable to suppose that someone would intend to change their mind before the condition was met. Assuming that then "it can be argued you never intended to drink it in the first place."

[Beerina]

Are you male or female? :(

If you've got the $1,000,000, I'll strap on some heels if ya like and be whatever you want. I cannot guarantee successfully convincing impersonations, merely the effort.

[Jeremy]

Would one be able to win the million by securing themselves into a device which will forcefully give you the toxin at 12:01?