Pascal's Wager and the Persistent Vegetative State

[jim stone]

My paper, as titled above, will appear at month's end
in the international journal, Bioethics (published by
the International Association of Bioethics and
Blackwells Publishers: Bioethics, Vol. 21,
No. 2, 2007, pp. 84-92.) I'll be glad to send a
PDF of the article, as it
will appear in the journal, to anybody who e mails me:
jstone@uno.edu.

We've discussed these issues here, and I thought
folks might like to see what a journal article about these
matters looks like. (Of course I would be glad for you to read it!)
It's accessible to lay people--there are a couple of
stats about recovery rates in the paper's first part which you
are welcome to skim. The rest is straight forward.


Best to all, Jim

[djm]

I'd be more interested in maintaining vegetative states; temperature, humidity, fertilizers, etc.

djm

[gonzo914]

Pascal's friends loved to play poker with him, because using the logic of Pascal's Wager, he was always hanging on to the River in hopes of filling that elusive inside straight.

If you stay ---
-- and the River hits for you, you get the pot
-- and the River misses, you lose your bet
If you do not stay --
-- and the River hits for you, you get nothing and lose nothing but you feel like a dumbass for folding
-- and the River misses, you also get and lose nothing but you can congratulate yourself for being a shrewd fellow.

This logic mistakenly led Pascal to think he had a 1 in 4 chance of winning, whereas in truth, the odds were more like 1 in 8 or 9.

Gonzo's Wager, on the other hand, simply states that your odds of winning are directly proportional to your opponents' alcohol consumption and inversely proportional to your own.

[peeplj]

Well, I've not read the article yet (though I've emailed Jim and look forward to reading it).

On Pascal's Wager itself, it is the classic argument for believing in God based upon the possible outcomes of belief vs. disbelief expressed as a truth table.

The problem with Pascal's Wager as it relates to religion is, while it looks really good, on close examination you see that it works because it's built around the idea of a false dichotomy: the truth table only holds true when its presuppositions hold true, making it a very fancy form of circular argument.

I'll be interested to see how this relates to the concept of the persistent vegetative state.

--James

[gonzo914]

My guess -

If you turn off life support --
-- and Aunt Agnes really is dead, you save a gazillion dollars and no big deal because Aunt Agnes was dead to start with.
-- and Aunt Agnes really isn't brain dead, you save a gazillion dollars but you killed Aunt Agnes.
If you leave on life support --
-- and Aunt Agnes really is dead, you wasted a gazillion dollars because, dammit, she's dead, Jim, and I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker.
-- and Aunt Agnes really isn't brain dead, you spent a gazillion dollars but your conscience is clean because you know you didn't kill Aunt Agnes, even if she never regains consciousness and the medical bills suck your inheritance dry.

I'd say the operative variable factors would be (1) Do you like Aunt Agnes? (2) How much money will Aunt Agnes leave you in her will? (3) Did Aunt Agnes ever give you a set of pink bunny jammies for Christmas?

[djm]

Yeah, pink bunny pajamas, vegetative states ... like that ... yeah .....

djm

[jim stone]

James, it should arrive momentarily. Thanks for your interest.

http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php ... b9c#349153

Here's a link to a thread about Pascal's Wager, in which
James and I were both participating, along with
a host of others.

[jim stone]

Hey, people are e mailing me! Grateful for the
interest, Jim

[Chiffed]

My guess -

If you turn off life support --
-- and Aunt Agnes really is dead, you save a gazillion dollars and no big deal because Aunt Agnes was dead to start with.
-- and Aunt Agnes really isn't brain dead, you save a gazillion dollars but you killed Aunt Agnes.
If you leave on life support --
-- and Aunt Agnes really is dead, you wasted a gazillion dollars because, dammit, she's dead, Jim, and I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker.
-- and Aunt Agnes really isn't brain dead, you spent a gazillion dollars but your conscience is clean because you know you didn't kill Aunt Agnes, even if she never regains consciousness and the medical bills suck your inheritance dry.

I'd say the operative variable factors would be (1) Do you like Aunt Agnes? (2) How much money will Aunt Agnes leave you in her will? (3) Did Aunt Agnes ever give you a set of pink bunny jammies for Christmas?

And what the hell was Schrodinger's cat doing in the box in the first place?

While we're at it, if we can't win, can't break even, and can't get out of the game, why are there any Canucks fans left?

Sorry, Jim. As you were.

[FJohnSharp]

I believe Pascal's Wager and the Persistent Vegetative State to be a nearly perfect name for a book or a short story or even a really good movie.

[Wombat]

Congratulations, Jim, on getting another paper into print. Bioethics is one of the journals I referee for, althlough I had nothing to do with the passage of your paper to press. (Of course, under the conventions of blind refereeing, I couldn't admit to helping or hindering, even if I had. I wonder if admitting I didn't is a violation.)

I'm a bit surprised that copyright permits you to share your manuscript like that before publication—so much for my knowledge of the rules of the journals I work for. (If it is a violation, I promise not to tell.)

[Lexxicos]

Persistent Vegetative State

[brewerpaul]

I believe Pascal's Wager and the Persistent Vegetative State to be a nearly perfect name for a book or a short story or even a really good movie.

Or a rock band

[Tyler]

Pascal's friends loved to play poker with him, because using the logic of Pascal's Wager, he was always hanging on to the River in hopes of filling that elusive inside straight.

If you stay ---
-- and the River hits for you, you get the pot
-- and the River misses, you lose your bet
If you do not stay --
-- and the River hits for you, you get nothing and lose nothing but you feel like a dumbass for folding
-- and the River misses, you also get and lose nothing but you can congratulate yourself for being a shrewd fellow.

This logic mistakenly led Pascal to think he had a 1 in 4 chance of winning, whereas in truth, the odds were more like 1 in 8 or 9.

Gonzo's Wager, on the other hand, simply states that your odds of winning are directly proportional to your opponents' alcohol consumption and inversely proportional to your own.

[jim stone]

I'm going to disappear Sat morning into the bowels
of a Buddhist meditation retreat center. No internet
access till late Weds. One string bean a day, and so on.
So if anybody e mails me and there's
no answer, I will definitely get back to you.

Best wishes, Jim