Talk:Kavka's toxin puzzle

PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING Kavka's toxin problem does not have a "solution." It is a thought experiment intended to illustrate a particular theory of Kavka's. The talk page of the article is NOT a forum for discussing the validity of Kavka's argument, nor is it a soapbox for predicting its results. If you are interested in the paradox, please review the primary literature. Please reserve this space for discussion relating to editing the article. For more information, see WP:NOR -Shaggorama 07:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

e.g of inappropriate discussion piece:

You can intend to drink it for the hell of it. All you have to do to get the million is at the stroke of midnight. At 12:01, you could change your mind, but you must have full intent at midnight. --68.153.121.113 02:10, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) (also known as cuiusquemodi)

Non-cognitivism vs. Moral realism

I removed this section because it was substantially wrong. It claimed that the toxin puzzle was only a puzzle for non-cogniivist ethical theories. (1) First of all, it's not, in the first intance, a puzzle of ethical theory at all. It's a puzzle of practical rationality, which need not be thought of as identical to ethics. (Example: My elbow itches, and I wish it did not. If I scratch it, it will stop itching. There is no apparent reason not to scratch it. So I ought rationally to scratch it. That's not obviously an ethical matter).

(2) Even a simple non-cognitivist can endorse any first order normative principle that a moral realist can, including "Always fulfill your intentions." The non-cognitivist need only suppose that he (or you) really like fulfilling your intentions. More sophisticated non-cognitivists have even more routes available for grounding possible normative principles.

(3) Whether you are a non-cognitivist, constructivist, or moral realist, the principle that you ought always to fulfill your intention is not a plausible candidate as either a moral or rational principle. It is of the essence of rationality that intentions change as circumstances change. Intentions are not plausibly read as promises to oneself. Thinking I am low on flour I intend to go to the store to get flour for a recipe; I find out I already have more than enough flour; I abandon my intention to go to the store. No plausible normative theory says that I should feel guilty, that I am a promise breaker, or that I am a liar in virtue of not going to the store.

(4) In order for any such principle to solve the toxin puzzle, that principle must say that there is a reason for me to drink the toxin when nothing good will come of it, for me or anyone else, even though I never promised (even myself) to do so. So far as I can see there is no plausible principle of morality or rationality that has this effect.

In general, I'd recommend this entry stay away from positing solutions to the puzzle. The fact that it hangs around as the toxin puzzle is a testament to the fact that there is no generally accepted solution. The most that would be appropriate in the way of solutions would be to mention various proposed solutions in the literature, with attribution of a source. (So so-and-so thinks the solution goes this way, so-and-so thinks it goes that way, so-and-so thinks neither of those work). -Derek

Thank you derek for your rigorous response to that section. I originally threw it off-the-cuff as an attempt to reveal some basic assumptions inherent in the thought-experiment. I was actually wondering what peopole thought of it and am still rather surprized it persisted intact for so long. I'm going to try to make time to break some books in the near future to investigate how far off my ideas were, and will respond to you when I can.

In the mean time, please sign your posts. I saw that you went to the trouble to register an account; singing your posts significantly enhances inter-editor communication and makes the discussion history simpler to navigate (among other things). -Shaggorama 09:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible error in solution?

The solution:

"The only true way to win the money is to resolve to drink the toxin no matter what, but also resolve to ask another person's opinion on the matter before you do."

appears to be a violation of the condition:

"... [you are not to] arrange for any way to avoid the effects of the toxin."

as arranging to ask another's opinion could be taken as an arrangement to avoid the effects of the toxin.

---

The discussion above refers to a version of this article which was deleted as a copyright violation. I have left it as it might be relevant to any future article on this topic. --rbrwr^± 12:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should get the money as long as you intend to drink the toxin, even if, through doublethink, you also intend NOT to drink the toxin, but I don't think it's worth the risk. Daniel

---

The solution doesn't seem right to me. The question is not "Would you drink it for a million dollars?", it is "Considering that I am offering you a million dollars, do you intend to drink it?" I think the person in the solution doesn't both intend to drink it and know that they don't have to drink it - they know that they will have to drink it since it will be offered to them. Regardless, the point of the puzzle is to illustrate a sort of paradox, so I think the solution should be removed. localh77 23:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

Maybe i'm not seeing this right, but from what I gather, aside from the time limit thing below or other such tricks, it's impossible to collect the money. If you die, you can't collect the money. Therefore, you must truly intend to not get the money. And if you don't want the money, there's no reason to take the poison. And to me it ends there, unlike most paradoxes which usually just end up with arguing in circles. Well, that's what I see from this one anyway. Interesting riddle, just wouldn't call it a paradox personally.--Headcase 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Time limit

What if the person intends to one day drink the toxin, but in the mean time decides to collect the million dollars and enjoy it on the way? You could do all kinds of things with your million dollars before you actually have to drink the toxin.

Screwed up version

The current version is screwed up. The idea behind the original paradox is that it is not always possible to prove an intention beyound all possible doubt. Take a murder for example. I take a knife and poke it into your belly. How far do I have to push the knife so that beyond doubt one may claim that I was intending to kill you rather than to pick lint out of your belly button? The example with deadly poison is an attempt to make the act in question most instantaneous: you either swallow it or not. mikka (t) 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a possibility, If your family is starving and you're willing to die to get the money to feed them... You would be willing to drink it nad not have to...

---

"Bubby" ----

References?

E.G. ISBN,. Rich Farmbrough 16:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Presentation of the puzzle

Is this really how the puzzle is to be presented? I have not read the original version by kavka presented in Analysis, (43(1986), 33-6) but in Simon Blackburn's Ruling Passions, the toxin problem is presented with the difference that the toxin is non-fatal, but will only cause intense discomfort in the form of nausea or illness. This seems a significant difference, since it's easier to intend to drink something that will not kill me. The problem then is after having 'successfully' formed this intention and acquired the money, I no longer have any reason to drink the toxin, and could be labeled irrational if I do. With this in mind, the problem becomes whether or not I can even truly form this intention to begin with knowing I'm almost definitely not going to drink the toxin when the time comes. Furthermore, if you all really want to argue over the solutions, it seems like reading the original problem might be a good idea, since someo foyou seem to have missed the point of the paradox. Shaggorama 07:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. Something about the presentation strikes me as off - if this was formulated for issues of game theory especially as informed by the Cold War, then it should've lead to considerations of credible commitments, which would've then lead to thinking about ways to objectively demonstrate your intent, such as (for this puzzle) signing contracts to pay someone 2 million dollars should you not drink the poison or something like that, much like devices in the literature for credibly committing to retaliating nuclearly to a devastating first strike. --Gwern (contribs) 03:28 2 September 2007 (GMT)

Counting Analogy

I'm not sure if it is related but I think that it is as possible as counting in your mind to 10 but not to 11. I myself have tried to do it for 2 hours and the best result I got is not thinking about number 11 for as long as 5 seconds after thinking of number 10. You need to be able to decide to die only for 1 second to get the prize, so I think it is possible. I would be able to do it if given enough time.

I think that would be closer to trying to pat your head while rubbing your stomach. The toxin problem is trying to illustrate a logical impossiblity that reveals something about the nature of intentions, beliefs and desires; it is not simply putting forward a difficult challenge. If the toxin challenge is close to anything that can be represented practically, I would compare it to forming an intention like "I will start my homework in a few minutes" while you have been watching TV for 2 hours and there is a show on next you really want to watch; you know you are probably lying to yourself, yet somehow you seem to be able to form an otherwise irrational intention.

For another fun challenge (like the example you raised), you can try drawing clockwise cirlcles in the air with your right foot, then simultaneously try drawing a 6 in the air with your right hand. And please, in the future sign your posts. Shaggorama 09:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruddigore

A person (the hero) is afflicted by a curse that if he does not commit a crime every day, he will die horribly. After some months of this, he realises that, since suicide, or attempted suicide is a crime under the pertaining jurisdiction, he has a let-out. Failing to commit a crime will, under the curse, result in his death. Therefore, deliberately failing to commit a crime is tantamount to attempting suicide, which is a crime. He can thus give up his life of mugging old ladies and fraudulently avoiding taxes. By so doing, he gets the girl, and lives happily ever after. This is Gilbert and Sullivan after all!

I don't know whether this quite fits as an an example of Kavka's paradox, but I thought it might be of interest.--King Hildebrand 10:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't accept this

Once one understands that it is impossible to intend to do something that you won't do (because you have no incentive), all one needs to do is to take a swig of the toxin which will prove that you had the intent to drink the poison, writhe around in pain for a few hours, and walk away with the money laughing. Or am I missing something obvious here?

196.209.28.39 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)dudley

I appears to me that the intention to perform the act of drinking the toxin is a valid intention. Whether the intention is carried out after the reward has been given becomes academic. The intention was there initially. If the subject's intentions were made clear before being adivised that the reward would be presented on intent, and not on completion of the intended act, would the puzzle still exist?

196.209.28.39 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC) dudley

The point is that you can never prove that you intended to drink the toxin if you don't drink it. So you HAVE to drink it to prove your intentions, otherwise, the intentions are always in doubt.

What about if the person truly intends to drink the toxin and is willing to deal with the side-effects, then before noon realizes that they can't because of some commitment they forgot about or if some emergency comes up that requires them to be healthy and able? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.0.100 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Crayfish Twins

solutions don't belong in the article people. but this one belongs on the talk page; i couldn't just let this piece of prose be lost to the archives:

"The answer to this may be that x intends to drink the toxin, x collects the reward then at a later date x drinks the toxin. The reason is that x does not know whether he will be offered another chance at the same game again. If he is, then he can again intend to drink the toxin. If he does not drink the toxin in the first place he can never (if offered the chance again) make a genuine intent to drink the toxin.

"Take as an example: there are two gangsters (the crayfish twins), Reg Crayfish is due in court and the police have a great witness who will seal Reg's conviction. Ron Crayfish visits the witness and informs him that if he testifies against his brother, Ron will nail his head to the kitchen table. The witness does testify and Ron carries out his terrible revenge (now leaving himself open to prosecution and imprisonment). In this instance Ron intends to do something and does it, it is irrelevant that he received no reward; he has now demonstrated that when he states his intent he will go through with it. As at some future date in his evil career he will need other people to know that he will always do what he intends."

From 13:34, 7 September 2007 version

--Shaggorama 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lying

This may seem obvious to some, but perhaps should be stated. I assume lying is not an option in this game. Am I correct? 216.57.220.248 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The puzzle is not a game, it's a paradox about the nature of intent. If you lie to the billionaire about intending to drink the toxin, you haven't actually formed the intention to drink it and don't get the money. It's a strange paradox. --Shaggorama (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MAD connections

Is there a (rigorous) way to flesh out the connections here to deterrence theory? I mean, I get the main drift—can you say you really intend the launch the missiles if (because of deterrence) you don't have to?—but it'd be nice to flesh out more thoroughly what Kavka's specific line of reasoning was, if it is available. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Manifeseto not an example

I don't think the political manifesto is actually equivalent, because the requirement of actual intent (not just stated intent) is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplie (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Honour as a benefit and reward of drinking the toxin after intending to do so

The article assumes that a rational person would not actually drink the toxin after getting the money, as such a person would not subject himself to physical harm with no chance of further reward.

Consider a person who believes in honour as integral to his life, would such a person be irrational if he acted honourably, seeing as proving how honourable he is to himself can be considered a reward?

Pay-offs (Analysis with honour)

	Intend	Do not intend
Drink	90 + Value of honour	−10 - Value of honour
Do not drink	100 - Value of honour	0 + Value of honour

Is the paradox solved if a person views the possible rewards in a broader sense than the acquisition of money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.154.198 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very easy to test actually

And I will do it, with a rational person to boot. I'm pretty sure she'll 100% want to have the "toxin" at the time of our roleplay, even though she doesn't want to anymore several hours later.

Besides, replace vial of toxin with bottle of wodka, and you have this test on a weekly basis. What some call unrational, I call perfectly normal human behaviour. Sometimes doing stupid stuff is fun.62.159.14.62 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's part of the point of the paradox that you categorically would prefer not to drink the poison for any reason, including "doing stupid stuff is fun" or a sense of whimsy. All other things being equal, you will not choose to drink the poison. That is a given of the scenario. But all other things are *not* equal. You would like to have $1,000,000 more than you would like *not* to drink the poison. So the question is, can you legitimately *intend* to drink it (to receive the million), knowing that you will change your mind after you receive the money? The answer is obviously (to me) "no". That said, it is not (imo) irrational to choose to drink the poison (to receive the million), receive the money, and then follow through and drink it. IMO the only way you can legitimately receive the money and then not drink the poison is to receive additional information after midnight that makes you change your mind about drinking. This has to be information you were not expecting or counting on, so it's impossible to set up. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Similarity Odysseus and the Sirens

To me this concept also seems thematically related to Odysseus' encounter with the sirens in The Odyssey, which Odysseus survives by anticipating that a later time he will fully intend to do something dangerous and making prearrangements to stop himself.

I'd add it to the "See Also" section of the article but I'm not sure what to link to as there don't seem to be any articles or sections dealing solely or primarily with that specific encounter

Dante's Inferno: Hypocritical repentance

Canto 27 relates the tale of Guido da Montefeltro, who committed the sin of evil council after being offered preemptive absolution for it by Pope Boniface VIII. His soul was carried away to Hell by a devil who pointed out that such an absolution was worthless because the sin came afterward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.90.54 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)