At about 3am last night, while I was trying to sleep, I remembered a question my philosphy prof. proposed to my class one day. It's a seemingly simple (and boring) question, but the more you think about it the more confusing it is. He said he actually did his doctorate thesis on the subject; I'll try and outline it below:

Suppose you have an entirely closed system, something like a monotonous concrete room, evenly lit, etc.

There are three things in this room. There is a starving donkey in the center of the room and two piles of hay exactly equadistant on either side of him.

Now, let's assume that there is absolutely no factor in this system that will affect the donkey's preference as to the pile of hay that he'll choose to munch on. They are both the same size, shape, color, distance etc. Neglect also the assumption that the donkey would pick the pile on his dominant side; he's 100% ambidextrous. In other words, each pile is exactly as appealing as the other.

How will the donkey decide which pile of hay to eat? Will it even make up it's mind, or will it starve because there is absolutely nothing to base it's decision on (either way).

How can the donkey make an arbitrary decision like this? It seems unlikey that an organic brain could make a random choice; something must be affecting it's decision.

I dunno. What are your thoughts on this?

I'm expecting a less hostile response than I got from girlfriend last night, who was kind of mad that I woke her up to ask her this ;).

Thanks,
Kyle

I'm guessing that the Donkey would go to whichever his brain judged to be further/more desirable. Just because they are equidistant/equi-tasty does not mean the Donkey would believe they were...

I don't think it would matter. It's possible that the donkey would just stay in place, but a person like me would say "screw all you f*ckers" and then I'd just eat one of them and move on to the other. That is, if I had a taste for hay.

the question you ask I believe is a really good one as I think it demonstrates how life manages to continue to exist with a state of stalemate.

The answer from reality would suggest that the donkeys craving for food will override any stalemate in that the donkey will make a choice of survival and not preference except to survive of course. The ability to make an arbitary decision not based on any particular belief except the knowledge that either choice will achieve the end result needed ( survival) The only choice is to eat or not to eat rather than from which pile

As such both choices answer his craving to survive so the choice is no longer a choice in that either pile of food satisfies his need.


A similar questions is the question of a man coming to a cross road in his life with a choice of two separate paths both of which are indeterminant and both futures just as unknown.

Maybe we think that arbitary decisions are hard to make but we do them all the time. So often we make desicions based on the fact that either decision is just as successfull. In some ways, we often toss the mental coin heads or tails and away we go.

Reminds me of that Batman film with the crim who always had to toss a coin to make a decision.

Do I go to the cinema or to the night club? ( only $15 to spend either way)....the choice made may very well be arbitary so as to stop a sense of stasis and keep moving regardless.
A lot of the time we just don't have the time to sit down and fully evalue our choices so in this sense the choice becomes either arbitary or quasi arbitary.

If one takes this question in an absolute sense and assume that the donkey has no craving for food or survival then there would be no need to choose at al therefore the question is no longer relevent. A question of choice of course suggests that a choice is needed to be made and if that need doesnot exist then there is no choice to make.

My thoughts.....yours?

The donkey would react much in the same way pollux would.
it wouldn't think "dude weird there like exactly the same, wtf? dude what do I do? haha this freaky! whoa" etc
It would have to look at one first, and then it would eat it.
Not very philisophical answer but your teacher shouldn't have chose the donkey if he expected me to be baffled.
I know donkeys like jews know dollar bills.
I was a lonely spanish donkey farmer for the years between 1968 and 1974. I wrote my thesis in college on donkey behaviour, specifically the decision making abilities of the donkey. I once sat through a secret underground donkey documentary marathon that had been banned in all but 4 countries because it had rendered 8 out of 9 test subjects brains useless from overpacking them with trivial donkey information.
I once stuck a carrot in my ass and allowed a donkey to eat it out.
I THINK I know just a little more about donkeys than this uppety philosophy professor.

I think the system would lose its conflict because we are dealing with a biological system.

Even if the brain was incapable of making a decision because both sides are equal, the nature of the biological system of an organism; a black box with chaotic characteristic would force the decision at one point.

this could happen at many levels. The donkey will make minute movements with its body and head as a standard. These might escelate into bigger movements, just because a tiny sway with the head forces the perception that one stack of hay is closer. This bigger movement in turn forces the decision to go for a particular stack of hay.

Without the noise in a system the answer would not be so easy though.

Hence the noise in the back box which is an organism will force a decision.

Hey Nebula,

Someone familar with digital logic design would recognize this as the problem of metastability (most commonly seen in flip-flops). It's also known as the problem of Buridan's Ass. Here's a link:

http://www.deeps.org/Tidbits/meta.html

Now get some sleep ;)

Michael

I'll support what spuriousmonkey said. To that, I can add that as time passes, there is less and less chance that the donkey will remain absolutely motionless. Once he moves, one stack will be closer, the other will be further away.

Why does he necessarily have to decide which stack is closer/farther? And why would he stand around and compare the two, to decide that they are exactly the same? Could it be, he sees one stack, sees the second one, and goes to the second one? Or, even better, sees a stack and goes to it.

What did your professor say?

I agree with most of the opinion of this thread, which has the donkey choosing one pile over another by some arbitrary means. The donkey is not a perfeclty logical animal, it wouldnt site there weighing the pros and cons of going to which pile, it would choose one, and eat it, and if still hungry, choose the other and eat it. For this to be some big mean philisophical question, the donkey would need to be replaced by an organism that is perfectly logical, yet not intelligent.

A perfectly logical human would eventually see the folly of his ways by choosing a [pile of something] over the other identical pile, because they would [hopefully] realize that to not choose means starvation.

Like monkey said, biological systems are fuzzy.

Does the room have any venhilation? Oxygen coming in?

Does the room have a way out?


If you answered no to either of the above then the Ass is going to die either way so who cares.

A better experiment is to see if the donkey will first go around and see if there is a way out of the room first before he eats. Would the donkey be aware of the fact that he is going to be dead if he can't escape the room . You could slowly eat each pile and naw on your leg, but you would eventually earn the same conclusion given the circumstances.

The donkey may have one leg longer then the other and his perception is thrown off, thus being inclined to the closer food. There are many of unknown variables that could affect the outcome.

How about humans though, do we ever get to make a neutral decision? I think every decision we make is a direct result of a prior decision, influence, or circumstance. We have both pos. and neg. responses and we use reason and logic to conclude an outcome. I would think that this sort of takes away our free will. It is like we are enslaved to decide what A. Benefits us or B. what preserves us or C. What we think will do either A. or B. Pretty selfish. I would define free will like this. The ability to make a neutral decision without bias or outside force. To my knowledge and best guess, Dreaming may fit into this. I am not sure though. Help me out with this. Is dreaming a choice? I would say no. If I say no, then we are enslaved to it.

To me the thread question is a question of absoluteness using an analogy of the donkey.
The question does not refer to a room except as an abstract or the fact that the donkey may have a biase undisclosed in the question.

Nebula, am I correct in assuming the question is absolute in that it suggests a state of impossible choice. with only the need to make the choice a factor.

Nebula, maybe it would be good if you could inform us all again what it is you are asking?

I think this is more of a nature of choice question. What could tip a system such as explained, in perfect equilibrium food, apprearance, choice wise, in one direction other then another?

It's all completely arbitrary, but is there something that would make the system favor one choice over another? Could something actually tip the system, without any notcible logical reason?

IMHO it's a quantum physics problem, QQ is right, the doneky is just an analogy.

i think my gist of it is that there is a premise that a choice is necessary and if this is the case then there is a choice to be made and will be made arbitarilly if nec.

If the choice is uneccessary then no choice is needed thus the proverbial donkey will not choose.

In the system describe.

Without an animal, but a system of perfect absolutes.

Both sides equal, a decision is required.

What might tip the scales, or would the system remain in equilibrium.

I said earliar we must rule out intelligence in the question, because an intelligent being or apparatus would realize that they are equal, and ditch one <i>arbitrarily</i>, without thinking about the decision. That is most likely the reason a donkey was used as the subject.

I think the donkey would choose the first pile he considers. I am, of course, assuming a donkey can reason. "He" would consider the two piles. If he first considers the pros and cons of the left pile, he maybe temporarily forgetting about the existance of the right pile. So, he will eat the left pile because that is all that exists.

A donkey would never put itself in a complicated situation like that. Like Quantum Quack said, it would chose survival if any choice had to be done.
And since nobody else was in the room, the donkey would also feel safe that the other pile would be there waiting for him after he had eaten the first one.

Actually.. I thought about what I said. What pile would the donkey consider first? Why should he pick the left one when the right one is equally deserving. Ahhhh... I am not sure.

I think this is question also brings up the idea of a god or gods. I mean, assume the universe was created by such. This is why they choose the world to not be perfect because if it were, then the donkey could never choose which pile to eat. Everything is perfect and equally deserving. Any one else agree?

The donkey would choose the side which is easier/shorter to walk to due to the celestial movement of the earth/or whatever place he is at at that moment.

perfectly imperfect:)

Originally posted by ProCop
The donkey would choose the side which is easier/shorter to walk to due to the celestial movement of the earth/or whatever place he is at at that moment.

I think you missed the point... lol. For one, do you make decisions based on how the earth rotates? haha.

Saw an interview on TV with a journalist who lived between the drifters? (homeless) in Paris for some months. He was puzzled by the route/way which they followed daily around/through the city. They walked in a group and without looking at each other or speaking or communicating in any way they always turned the cornes the same but still the walk was every day quite different. The journalist tried to puzzle this out (do they have some secret argeement about the day and the direction of the walk?) but didn't succeed. On the last day with the driffters he asked an inteligent drifter (a famous Paris dentist who killed his wife and her lover). The dentist was suprised and amused by the journalist's question about the secret code for the days walking. There is no code..the dentist said, we just never walk against the wind.

Procop, walking towards or away fromt he earths spin has a negligible effect, walking against the wind can be straining.

Sorry for taking some time to reply...

I think Quantum Quack is the closest:

Nebula, am I correct in assuming the question is absolute in that it suggests a state of impossible choice. with only the need to make the choice a factor.

Righto. Forget which of the donkey's legs is longer, all that stuff. There is absolutely no way for the donkey to prefer one pile over the other.

Thus, does the donkey not make a choice because it has nothing to base it's decision on (either consciously or unconsciously)?

Think of this as a never ending "eenie-meenie-minee-mo" type scenario....

Does this make it any clearer?