Another one of those button questions.

[NightGizmo]

It means exactly that. To lose something means to not have it after the losing, and in this case that wouldn't be the case because there's no more "I" to not have it.

I think you're trying to base your desire to keep on living in logic, which is fair enough but I'm not sure it's possible to do so. Thus far you haven't made any arguments other than saying "it is negative".

Trying a different approach.... Do you value your life, and do you value continuing to live beyond this moment? (I'm going to assume you answer "yes"). Once your life ends, that value drops to 0 -- by definition, there is nothing left to value. So going from "alive" to "dead" means that the value goes down. So, you have to include that loss in that 1% chance of losing when you press the button. Isn't that exactly why you wouldn't press the button? Because you value your life too much to risk it on a gamble?

One more comment -- you can assign a value to a conditional future event, even if that future event is "I will no longer exist, and thus not be able to value anything anymore." The EV of dying is negative-a-lot, because it's expected value -- it's the value you are using to make a decision. Which assumes that you're alive right now to make that decision, and basing that decision on how things are valued to you, at that moment.

I don't know if I'm explaining it well (or if I'm even right) -- but I'm enjoying the discussion

[a500lbgorilla]

Trying a different approach.... Do you value your life, and do you value continuing to live beyond this moment? (I'm going to assume you answer "yes"). Once your life ends, that value drops to 0 -- by definition, there is nothing left to value. So going from "alive" to "dead" means that the value goes down. So, you have to include that loss in that 1% chance of losing when you press the button. Isn't that exactly why you wouldn't press the button? Because you value your life too much to risk it on a gamble?

One more comment -- you can assign a value to a conditional future event, even if that future event is "I will no longer exist, and thus not be able to value anything anymore." The EV of dying is negative-a-lot, because it's expected value -- it's the value you are using to make a decision. Which assumes that you're alive right now to make that decision, and basing that decision on how things are valued to you, at that moment.

I don't know if I'm explaining it well (or if I'm even right) -- but I'm enjoying the discussion

You can't carry any value beyond the grave.

When you die, the value doesn't drop to zero.

There is not such thing as value.

[NightGizmo]

You can't carry any value beyond the grave.

When you die, the value doesn't drop to zero.

There is not such thing as value.

That's what I was trying to address in the second paragraph. You have to make your decisions based on the increase/decrease in utility to you, as you exist. So, you have to have a starting point for that utility -- in this case, the zero point is "I'm not alive".

If you just assign "undefined" to death, then you can't make any decisions that involve even the slightest risk of death, because then the entire decision calculation becomes undefined or incorrectly leaves out death as a consequence.

[a500lbgorilla]

That's what I was trying to address in the second paragraph. You have to make your decisions based on the increase/decrease in utility to you, as you exist. So, you have to have a starting point for that utility -- in this case, the zero point is "I'm not alive".

If you just assign "undefined" to death, then you can't make any decisions that involve even the slightest risk of death, because then the entire decision calculation becomes undefined or incorrectly leaves out death as a consequence.

Right, but the zero point isn't I'm not alive. Because if I'm not alive, I'm not alive. That's not winning or losing or balanced between the two, that's just naught.

[a500lbgorilla]

If you just assign "undefined" to death, then you can't make any decisions that involve even the slightest risk of death, because then the entire decision calculation becomes undefined or incorrectly leaves out death as a consequence.

I know, and I'm playing coy, but come on. When you die, you're dead.

The world could end after you and you'd still be dead. Or the world could usher in 5 generations of peace and prosperity and you'd be dead.

Math is the language of careful thought. And real careful thought about death is a funny thing.

[NightGizmo]

I know, and I'm playing coy, but come on. When you die, you're dead.

The world could end after you and you'd still be dead. Or the world could usher in 5 generations of peace and prosperity and you'd be dead.

Math is the language of careful thought. And real careful thought about death is a funny thing.

I'm not arguing about what happens after you're dead, or how you feel about things at that point. You're right -- you don't care anymore, there's no consciousness left to value anything. But you make decisions every day with the assumption that death is a very large cost, and factoring that cost into your decisions.

So Rilla/Kiwi -- explain your logic/reasons for why you wouldn't push the button for a ridiculously low number. How does it not boil down to, "The risk is not worth the reward," i.e. the cost of dying is too much?

[a500lbgorilla]

So Rilla/Kiwi -- explain your logic/reasons for why you wouldn't push the button for a ridiculously low number. How does it not boil down to, "The risk is not worth the reward," i.e. the cost of dying is too much?

The cost of dying is a debt never to be paid.

I'd like to live, but life is not something that is weighed against any value. And when it's lost, it can't be measured in terms of any value.

[kiwiMark]

Do you value your life, and do you value continuing to live beyond this moment? (I'm going to assume you answer "yes"). Once your life ends, that value drops to 0 -- by definition, there is nothing left to value.

I disagree with the bolded part, I think we're maybe narrowing in on our fundamental difference here. While I'm still alive, things can happen that affect how much I value my life (and could push that value to 0). After I'm dead, there's no I to value things so value is a totally meaningless concept -- that's something different from everything having a value of 0.

because it's expected value -- it's the value you are using to make a decision. Which assumes that you're alive right now to make that decision, and basing that decision on how things are valued to you, at that moment.

Yes, you're making the decision on how you value things right now, and yes it's about expectation.
Let's say I'm deciding between pressing a button to get $100 and one to take $100 away from me. I take my expectations of the two separate outcomes and I compare them, then choose the outcome that holds more value for me. Why do I value the +$100 more though? Let's say that you get to "Because it will make me happy" whereas the second option will not make me as happy (if you disagree with happiness being the pursuit/deciding factor in decision making then please do sing out, cos maybe that's where we're not on the same page).
So in the case of this button, if I luck on one of the 99% chances then yes I think I'll be more happy. If I hit on the 1% chance though, I won't be more happy, nor less happy, nor the same amount of happy. So you can't make a comparison.

which brings us to:

So Rilla/Kiwi -- explain your logic/reasons for why you wouldn't push the button for a ridiculously low number. How does it not boil down to, "The risk is not worth the reward," i.e. the cost of dying is too much?

I'm not sure if I can give you an answer that satisfies you, I guess my point is that it's illogical to not press the button (even for a small number) but that I still wouldn't do it. We have evolved to have an aversion to death, just like we've evolved to have a desire to copulate. If something had no aversion to death, it wouldn't stick around for very long.
That doesn't mean it's logical to have an aversion to death. If something evolved to act purely on (my/rilla's/wuf's) logic, it would have acted purely on logic and stopped living already. (and is thus impossible that it ever really came to be in the first place, but you know)

I think there are lots of things in life that we have sort of an intuitive feel for which serves us pretty well but lacks precision, and by using maths and logic in the place of feel we can increase that precision, bring us closer to the "optimal decision" or whatever that our "feel" was shooting for in the first place. I don't think that this is always the case though, I think this scenario is one where our "feel" takes us in an opposite direction to maths/logic, and the latter is not strong enough to overcome the former (for me).

[kiwiMark]

I don't know if I'm explaining it well (or if I'm even right) -- but I'm enjoying the discussion

just turned on the computer and haven't read further than this post yet (looks like heaps more posts overnight) but +1 to this bit