flannel jesus

So just to be clear, this is you saying it works in the case of 2 blue 2 brown 1 green, correct?

Above doesn't include a specific scenario where it works. A specific scenario looks like "2 blue, 2 brown, 1 green". Does it work in that scenario, if...

When? Everything seems so vague right now. When does it work? What does Tommy have to see for it to work?

so you're switching back to saying it DOES work for n=2?

But you're Tommy. You don't know ahead of time if there are 2 brown 2 blue or 3 brown 1 blue. That's the point. That's LOGIC. You don't know. Your rea...

This is the exact scenario that you said did work above. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1003049 You said the reasoning worked. You'...

I don't know if you're going to play the game from my previous post, so I'll play it on your behalf using the logic you've given already. You see Timm...

How about we do a real experiment: YOU'RE Tommy. I'm not going to tell you your eye color. You see Timmy with blue eyes, you see George and Jack with ...

Seems like you're not seriously considering the possibility that you're wrong. That's a mistake.

Tommy genuinely thinks Timmy might be the only one with blue eyes, right? If that's the case, Tommy has NO REASON whatsoever to think Timmy will leave...

we're not talkinfg about that case though. michael can't prove it for the case of 2.

sure, it's a "coincidence". You're using non-deduction and incorrect reasoning, as an outside observer, to get to the correct conclusion. If I asked y...

A1 and A2 don't make sense as two separate premises A1. Green sees blue A2. Therefore, if I don't see blue then I must be blue The only reaason you kn...

spell out the reasoning then. I don't think it "helps", I think it's an entirely irrational thing for Tommy to imagine that.

that's not deductive though. 1 blue wouldn't leave on the first day anyway, right? Why would he?

let's name the blue-eyed people. We're going to talk about Timmy and Tommy. Timmy and Tommy both have blue eyes so let's look at this from Tommy's per...

I'm trying to work with you on making your case, but you don't want to take n= 2 to is logical conclusion. Try it. Try reasoning about the case where ...

why would they imagine someone saying that?

At n=2, I see only 1 person with blue eyes. I see he doesn't leave on day one. This is the scenario where the guru didn't say anything, so IF he's the...

You said it applies to n=2 as well, that's what we're talking about. Here's the context: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1002914

But if 1 wouldn't leave, then you can't correctly deduce your eye colour at n=2. You already can't.

Either mental events have some kind of directly emergent relationship with physical events and processes - in which case, "mental causation" is simply...

Just to follow up on this. In the case if 2 2 2 like you laid out, from the point of view of a brown, here's what he knows: "There's 1 brown, 2 blue, ...

now I get why you got the answer so fast and so cleanly as well. Very cool

thanks!

as philosophers, surely we've known that the whole time anyway. That there can always be an error in our thinking.

I actually think that's a good thing. I mean, we already have situations where two groups of people feel clearly that the other side is wrong - having...

I guess I don't feel that way about this, because this is an especially contrived scenario, deliberately built to be counter intuitive. I don't think ...

You just have to accept that you aren't a perfect logician. Is that so bad?

This is the fundamental part that fails in the logic, Michael. There's no reason whatsoever for 1 person, brown eyed or blue eyed, to leave on day one...

This is the part that logically fails. Why would 1 brown leave on day 1 anyway, if guru says nothing?

And why n >= 3, rather than n >= 2?

you made a post, and then you edited it to say "oh wait", and then you edited it again after that. It's making the whole conversation incredibly diffi...

did you edit the prior post to this one? The fact that you did willingly edited this post makes me wonder if you might have edited the one prior as we...

why not at b=2? Think about it. At b=2, guru could say I see a blue, and everyone knows guru could say that, because everyone sees a blue who isn't th...

I don't see why, at any stage, one can just imagine the guru. If you can't imagine him at stage one or two, then you can't simply imagine him at stage...

that's why you have to take it one step at a time. Start by ONLY imagining the scenario with two blue eyed people. The case of "what would happen if t...

But here's the trick. You've agreed with the case of two blue eyed people. Which means, unambiguously, if there were two blue eyed people, they would ...

fantastic question!! Seriously. That's what makes this such a great puzzle. That's why you have to break it down into pieces. If everything were the s...

I think you're giving up too quick. If there's only 2 blues, then each blue DOESN'T have justification to think that if the one blue they see wasn't b...

These pair of premises don't make sense together. If green hasn't said anything, then the only reason you could possibly know green sees blue is preci...

What you're not understanding is that they could just add easily incorrectly deduce their eye colour. It's a coin flip at best, because the "deduction...

yeah that's the canonical solution, and matches yours. I'm still endlessly impressed you figured that out on your own, not everyone can do that. I cou...

you keep begging the question. You're just declaring yourself correct repeatedly, with incorrect premises. Premise 2 is incorrect.

This doesn't work if green doesn't say anything. If green doesn't say anything, p2 isn't the case. If green doesn't say anything, and you don't see bl...

Same reasoning as unenlightened, who was assuming the green eyed person said something? Make your reasoning explicit. You're still riding on coattails...

Like this for example. Why do you think this is true? If green eyed person says nothing, what reason would the two blue have to leave on the second da...

just because you think you've explained something doesn't make it correct. I've had a lot of wrong ideas explained to me in my life. You're still basi...

it doesn't though. You're just insisting it does, but you aren't starting from a reasonable place. There's no reason in your scenario that anybody cou...

so are you going to answer why the green eyed person, who doesn't say anything, is relevant?