Yeah, but now that I convinced you, my last post should now convince you that it actually is a fold.

Was about to post the same thing.

There's an ev calculation when deciding not to commit suicide and even when considering the possibility of a failed attempted suicide but its meaningless to talk of the ev of a successful suicide.

Its a classic case of people getting confused by correct maths. Ironic considering the OP

but could someone sad make the mistake of committing suicide but not qualify as being depressed? Someone could be sad and mistakenly get drunk at a highly inappropriate time and that wouldn't count as depression - does the larger mistake in itself change the diagnosis?

I agree an that's normally a good idea but we also taboo suicide when its not a mistake and when it shouldn't and/or doesn't 'bother' the familly - obviously the familly may well be very upset but that's they might be less upset than a few more years of suffering followed by death.


Repeating myslef because I'd still like to know. Can a particular case be diagnose as the mistake of a person without depression?

If there's a quality of life below which you commit suicide, and above which you don't commit suicide, then obviously the EV of living that quality of life is the EV of death. It's literally what you are willing to pay to die. I don't know what could be more clear.

If you define the EV of your life as a function of your experiences in life, there is some point at which it is equally worthwhile to continue with those experiences or to not continue. Hence you can equate the value of having no experiences (i.e. suicide) with some set of actual experiences.

Lol one minute too slow.

I guess you'd have to consider it over different time periods.
So suicide would be +EV, if and only if, over all time periods from now until x, where x ranges from now to your natural death, you would prefer to be unconscious than experience being alive.

Although some particular lifestyle choice is quite likely going to be more +EV than suicide.

Once they have committed suicide, they don't qualify for the diagnosis anymore.

Suicide can happen on a whim or as a response to a traumatic event, so someone could easily attempt it (or succeed) without qualifying for the diagnosis. The simple example is a teen whose gal breaks up with him. Usually in the young, such examples are filled with poor thinking.

The teen in question in this thread surely didn't take into account blow jobs (or if he is particularly unattractive, porn) or how enjoyable a nice walk can be in his analysis.

We taboo things that are generally a bad idea for a reason. Nothing particularly wrong (from a logical examination of the natural consequences) with having consensual sex with your mom if you wear a condom, but it is still taboo.

The trick, of course, is to not worry about the taboo if it is correct in the individual's case. The nice thing about being dead is that other people can't really put much peer pressure on you to conform to their standards of conduct.

Yes. The cases of accidental-but-should-have-seen-it-coming suicide (overdose for instance) are fairly common. The cases of someone doing it on a whim are also fairly common.

As I understand it in some cultures suicide is considered +ev. I'm not sure if we can show that is incorrect.

I wanted to point out that weed is not a good idea for depressed people who are experimenting with 'cures'. I think weed is great therapy for many things including depression, but it can certainly make things worse in many ways. Also the quality and type are quite important (if anything get a sativa).

Can we say that life has x amount of EV or is it that value is totally one's own opinion? It seems to me that it is just a different way of asking is there a god, basically touching on the unknown and can't be known.

I think that is important to define because otherwise lifting someone from depression is really just conditioning them not to feel that way, rather than bringing reason to them that will set them correct. This would involve different means than a future and world that is known to be +ev.

I also think this goes back to not being able to extract a foundation morality from game theory, or math for that matter. I would think you can only get so far until you settle the god debate.

It's pretty clear to me we live in a world of denial and ignorance. I guess its ironic I would have to post some examples, but I'm not sure anyone would argue with that anyways. I think depression is natural in this place and that most if not all have it to some degree and its underlying cause it friction from our ignorance (guilt).

But depression needn't point towards suicide, and in fact I think its a religious belief to suggest that suicide fixes the situation, it might in fact make it worse.

The doctors' role seems to be to help the individual turn inward to validate and fix the self, but I (along with I think most ancient eastern philosophy) would suggest that the disconnection created from the validation of the individual is itself the source of the depression.

I would guess that those that broaden there scope of concern to reach further and further out towards the entirety of mankind, suffer less in the way of depression than those that are selfish and introverted.

This depends of course on definitions of depression, and the depths to which we feel things of course.

You can define and equate anything you like but a person is required to make value meaningful.

Perhaps we should define imaginary values. Then we could talk of the imaginary value lost by a failure to exist

Lets consider a diagnosis before suicide and a review of the diagnosis. If its a deliberate premeditated suicide can the diagnosis of not depressed be considered correct even if its clearly a mistake (*)

okay but what about cases similar to the op where its a considered action.

Yes its clearly a mistake but it may not have been a whim or the response to a traumatic event. What's the answer to (1) above in this hypothetical.


Taboos cannot just be ignored. Suicide being a taboo makes it worse for the survivors so is a reason not to committ suicide if you care about them. Even worse if you need some assistance.


As above I'm trying to consider the harder cases where its a well considered and deliberate action. Lets ignore accidental suicide if that even means anything.

Yes. There are loads of things that can cause an unreasonable suicide.

It can still not be depression. Loads of really skinny and obese people don't have an eating disorder.

With the small amount of information available, I'd say we could diagnose him with making a carefully considered decision on either faulty logic or faulty information. Those aren't psychiatric diagnoses.

I didn't see you going here. Was going to head you off at the pass.

The survivors nearly always end up being ok when it is a good death. People move on.

The child in question obviously didn't enter into his calculations that it might make his parents at least a bit sad.

It is quite important to take into account the whims and accidental ones. Those are the reasons for the taboo. One of the reasons taboos exist to prevent people from taking unreasonably drastic action when under less than dire straits.

People break taboos all the time when they are in dire straits. We expect them to. Old Yeller wasn't an excellent book because it was easy.

Okay txs.

If good or bad death was the issue then it wouldn't be taboo. People are distressed more because its taboo.

Plus if they're locked up for assisting its only a small consolation that it was the right thing to do.

Dont know haven't checked his maths but its a general point not about that kid.


I doubt it, Taboos are frequently just fear and bigotry. Some coincide with good ideas and that can make taboo's seem well founded and profound but its mostly just the issues are big and if you take a side you'll be right sometimes.

Exactly, and as anyone with mathematical sense can see, this is clearly a natural and meaningful way to define the EV of death.

In mathematics, rather than leaving functions undefined over some domain, we prefer to extend our definition when this gives results that are meaningful and consistent with the properties that the function already has. For example, we define natural logarithms in a way that preserves all properties of the elementary notion of logarithms, but it permits exponents to be irrational. The EV has a more general definition based on the Lebesgue integral which preserves all properties of the elementary definition, but it gives meaningful results for more general types of random variables.

In our case, the meaningful property of EV that we wish to preserve is the fact that it is the value we would pay for something. If we are willing to pay any amount < x for something, but not any amount > x, then when the EV of that thing is defined it had better be x. So if that thing is death, and x is the value of our life, then the EV of death had better be x if it is to be anything at all. Surely it is meaningful to define this quantity - the value of our life that we would exchange for death. So given that we would like to define it anyway, and given that it plays the role that the EV plays in every other instance where the EV is defined, I can't imagine a reason to call it or think of it as anything other than the EV of death.

This is what allows us to make the very natural analogy between folding a hand and ending your life which others itt have made. Folding means not continuing your hand because you would lose more than you would gain which is -EV. You would rather gain nothing more and lose nothing more, so you fold because that has an EV of 0. Suicide means not continuing your life because you would lose more than you would gain which is -EV. You would rather gain nothing more and lose nothing more, so you kill yourself because that has an EV of 0.

To say that the EV of death must remain undefined because it can only apply to possessions of living people is to impose a restriction on EV that is arbitrary, unnecessary, and inferior. It's like the mathematicians that hindered progress for centuries because they refused to accept square roots of negative numbers. Of course square roots of negative numbers don't exist because everyone knows that only positive numbers can have square roots, and to state otherwise is to believe in something that is imaginary.

Can't be done. But, I can spew with the best of them so take note-

This is a ten-step process.

Step One: purchase my late night grocery list (no joke):
Fresh Basil, Thyme, Rosemary, and 100-watt light bulb.

Step Two: Download and loop play the below linked song continuously for one hour while simultaneously jumping over a King James Bible placed in the middle of your living room. Singing along is required.

Mellow Yellow, by Donovan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLFGnP_EPpQ

Step Three: Do not post again in this thread; it is all -EV from this point on.

Steps Four through Ten: The biggest Secrets since L. Ron Hubbard ascended to Heaven in his golden chariot.

Hint:

Live unknown. - Epicurus

So........What's the EV of my death. It would be amusing for me to know how long to prolong the joke. And what is the unit of measure. EV death coins? Quality of life dollars? Units in Pints of Bitters? Number of Blow Jobs? Posts in SMP?

We'll design a special derivative instrument based on those indices.


I once read that engineering majors commit suicide at a lower rate than liberal arts majors, and the reason was attributed to the fact that they tend to solve their life problems symbolically.


Substitute Parsley and Sage for the Basil.

-EV

I think we should be allowed to post in SMP after we are dead. I shall leave some in my will along with some sarcastic comments.

I was joking, but now I just think that "gaining death" is completely meaningless.

You don't "gain death" as if it's some new experiential state. It's the end of you.

If we're sticking with poker analogies, suicide is hand over, sit out enabled, and never play another hand.

Much better analogy. Fold is move onto next hand or take your money down the pub and sichan empress, nothing like death however pretty we make the numbers - not even suited numbers will do.

Whether you can "gain death" and whether a person can really have an EV after they are dead is irrelevant. Some people wish to achieve a state of the universe where they have no more experiences. They decide WHEN THEY ARE STILL ALIVE that they are willing to pay with their lives to achieve that state. What they are willing to pay is the EV of their decision to commit suicide. So you can continue to insist that dead people don't have EVs if you like and still accept that suicide has an EV since it is a price computed by living people.


I could achieve the same thing by being put in permanent coma. That wouldn't be the end of me, so can I have an EV then?


That's fine, and your EV for the hands you are sitting out is 0. There are plenty of sites where I haven't played a hand in years and never will again, but I still have a poker EV at those sites of 0 in every hand that is dealt every day that I choose not to play. I've never even placed a bet in roulette, but every spin every day at every casino in the world I have a roulette EV of 0. In fact my roulette strategy has a higher EV than virtually everyone who places bets. This isn't my definition. It's a consequence of the way EV is defined as a function of the value of bets, their payoffs, and the probability that I win. In order to say that the EV is undefined, you would have make the mathematical definition of my EV depend on whether or not my butt is actually in a particular seat (which for online games it is anyway), or you would have to exclude 0 as a possible value for a bet, and then we might as well go back to pre-Mayan times.

I'm not defending how people/societies work, just describing. We have a few states here where physician assisted suicide is allowed. It seems to act more as a comfort to know you could than anything because the number of people choosing the option is quite small.

The big reason for me being in favor of assisted suicide is that you get a better vetting process and counseling on a difficult decision.

It is a general point that should be taken into account by most people considering it. Most of us do care about our loved ones.

I'd say they often have a cultural glue component and are a way of identifying members of your in-group. Sometimes little other than that, but I particularly like the taboo against murder.

Its early days but we might expect the number to stay fairly small. The ability to commit suicide later is a great reason not to do it now - we can freeroll for longer.

but whilst it remains a taboo then even people for whom it makes sense will refrain because of the additional pain for their familly (or because they're religion has scared them)

Absolutely. Its also a totally unfair burden to place on close familly who are not thinking clearly, may disagree profoundly and who have a conflict of interest due to being the beneficeries.

Of course but its very difficult to differentiate the natural grief that cant be avoided whatever you do from whether its reducing/adding to that grief. The taboo doesn't help

Yeah not so good when its homosexuality. As I said they tend to be significant issues so it can look clever sometimes.

I expect the numbers to stay small for precisely the reason you give. Me knowing that I have an out takes the pressure off and generally makes my life a bit more enjoyable. It doesn't so for the people who have intrusive self-destructive thoughts, but that is a different issue (mental illness).

Smart comment. A person with impartiality and more experience is helpful to have along on any difficult journey.

Of course. When I was a professional and had to deal with a grieving family, I'd try to get them to focus on the fact that people who commit suicide were troubled (even if unreasonably troubled) by something a great deal and that they no longer are.

The general difficulty is managing to get out a little bit of "there, there, s/he isn't suffering anymore" without sounding like you mean "get over it because there is no use crying over spilled milk."

We are getting better, I think. My family had "my great uncle the confirmed bachelor and his friend" and now has "my brother and his husband." Intolerance and ignorance yields to acceptance and knowledge given sufficient time and sufficient discussion.

Nobody can make a reliable EV calculation for life, even his own. Except under some pretty extreme circumstances, we simply don't have enough information and cannot tell what the future may bring. Inference can be a dangerous thing though.