It doesn't matte though does it? I mean Melitus has mixed us all up, so we might have been playing as the A.I. through that bit...
At least, that was in Ush's post...
Still as far as we know, both think the same, so any arguement we use that we believe could work, will be simply given back to us by the other one, since we are the same. And we can't say we don't agree, because then our clones wouldn't agree with what is posted... See, that's my dillemma.
The Clones have done this Assignment and all of it aith Melitus, yes- that should be obvious, as bAzrael points out, because as Mleitus says, you havew all been mixed up, so some of you have been doing that already. Everyone has been thrpough the same experiences since you woke up on the sofa at the start of the Assignment.
Rade- well done for identifying the fact this this is a bit of a problem. Sadly, I can hardly start advancing solutions to you; that is up to you. That is, of course, one of the central dilemmas of the piece. Ideally, though, your final submission would remove this as a problem.
Azrael, did you think the idea was to trick your other half into drinking? If you both advance the same argument, it should, really, be for the SAME person to drink, not both of you asking the other (though this is possible with some philosophies), assuming your logic is identical. Regardless, don't burn your brain out worrying about that; right now you are only playing one person, so advance an argument based on that and we shall see what transpires.
But yes, obviously, if your argument is simply "I think you should drink because I want to live" then you would just get that thrown back at you.
yes, my submission will solve the problem..but i just want to know if my submission will make it more than just about chance.
because i might put up a good argument, and convince him to drink it...and then rade(the character) dies.
So..there's chance in it every way i look at it...regardless of the argument
Your submisison will make it less about chance... IF it makes it less about chance, if you see what I mean.
For example, a submission might say X rather than Y should drink because it is more LIKELY that X is the copy. In which case the argument is fair but has some measure of chance built in.
(though as a note, it is only fair if you establish why the AI should die, of course!)
Technically the best of all submissions would establish who is what and give a convincing reason why one should die in place of the other that the one will accept.
However, the proximity you can get to this state is limited by your beliefs. That is a function of this section, so please just do the best you can.
If both me and my counterpart want the real Castor to live then once we figur eout who is mor elikely to be the real castor then there should be no dispute on who should drink the wine. So in essence wre not convincing the other to drink the wine, were convincing one or the other that the person who doesnt drink the wie is the best choice for Castors survival?
That is not necessarily so for everyone, Castor, but as a foundation for an argument it works just fine. If you can provide an argument you agree with that shows you think the real should live and the AI die, and establishes someone as more likely to be real, then it seems not at all unlikely that when you make your submission it will be accepted.
Well, like I say, you are not necessarily meant to, though if your approach is to identify the one to live based on the idea that the one to live should be the real one, then identifying the AI at some point in yuor submission would be handy.
But approaches to the problem that completely ignore who is or is not the AI are possible.
Only if you, say, use chance, or a fight. Or say maybe something like
"You should drink th wine because I believe myself to be the real Azrael. I believe that is true, so I am correct." but as you say, that would just be thrown back at you.
And if you did it without determing who is the AI there would be that chance thing again...
Yes, I think I mentuioned, Castor, that if you talk to yourself you will answer yourself, so there is no great point in playing it all out, it is just like talking to yourself. If you tell me that you think the original Castor should ir should not not drink the wine and give me a reason for that, then your other self will have the same reasoning.
And yes, the whole reason the chance thing is there is to stop it being as simple as 'agreeing with yourself' that the other one should die.
The only exception is the final submission, which has to go though Melitus (i.e. me).
Dallas texted Fire at the end of Assignment III.
Depends what you mean by help, Azrael. I cannot help you form your own arguments, no, but I can help you define the parameters of the scenario, and I can remind you that I have give out certain useful pieces of information during the course of the Assignments. I do not want anyone to think of that as hints, because that goes back to implying this is a problem with a set answer to be solved, but there HAS been guidance.
Okay, so Azraels are in a room together and neither know which one is real. One has to die, and I am definately hoping it will not be my character Azrael, not the AI. I also need to persuade one to drink the wine. But, if I attempt to do that I can only use an arguement I would be able to believe, it will simply be thrown back in my face.
And short of some kind of physical thing, there is no way, as far as I can tell, to determine which is the real Azrael.