Monty Hall

http://www.marilynvossavant.com/articles/gameshow.html

Haha think this is so amazing in so many ways.

I knew this old problem was kinda confusing.. but I didn't know the solution was elusive enough to stumble thousands of people with Phds. And I think it shows us how we trust our instinct too much. I'm sure if these people who accused Marilyn Vos Savant of being wrong had worked out the solution from ground zero and not relied on what their intuition was telling them, the answer would have been very clear to them.

Growth

In reversi, players improve vastly when they start to question every move they make. the intent, the consequences. And in this process there is a continual uncovering and questioning of every assumption about the game that they have held on to. False assumptions are gotten rid of which results in the segregation of habit from principle.

And I think in some sense it is the same for the game of life. But life is a vastly more complicated game than reversi. It is hard enough to know the objective of the game, not to mention internalize it. And with such a long span of time allowed, it is easy to lose focus. And of course the rules will never be fully known. And even, when you are familiarized enough with the rules and objective (which differs for each individual), it will take many lifetimes to fully master it.

But then again, it is because of this complexity that is absolutely crucial to question.

Cogito ergo sum

"I think, therefore I am." is probably the most famous philosophical statement due to it's simple argument and compelling conclusion. So when I heard that it is a fallacy because it is a circular argument, I was highly curious to find out for myself how true that claim is.

A simple google search revealed the following at: http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html, a philosophy webpage of San Jose State University.

I quote: "Descartes has begged the question here, because when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three hundred years later."

Wow.. what a big claim. But interestingly, instead of overturning the "fallacy", the author of the webpage (let's call him Sjsu) is actually supporting the argument. Here's why:

Sjsu says "when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?)"

This is a proposition. And we can we rephrase it into: If I can think, I am.

And of course if that premise is true, then the conclusion: "I think, therefore I am." is definitely true as well. It is a very simple deductive argument.

In summary:

(1) If I can think, I am.

(2) I think, therefore I am. (1)

If you want the answers

dare to ask the questions.