It has *something* to do with the halting problem. The usual way of demonstrating that no program can solve the halting problem is to suppose you've got one that does and use it to carry out a construction a bit like the one HungryHobo is gesturing towards, where F arranges to halt iff the halting-tester says it doesn't.

It's the same pattern as the simple proof of the halting problem. Feeding your program into itself as part of the parameters replacing an infinite loop with "lose" and halt with "win".

The barber paradox is just a simple, "sets of all sets which do not contain themselves" thing which has nothing to do with what I wrote.

My point was that your set of rules are equivalent to a program which you follow to try to reach the "winning" outcome hence it's pretty easy to see that no matter what rules you chose for your version of decision theory it's simple to construct a scenario where your rules cannot provide the "winning" answer.

It feels like decision theory is subject to the halting problem. Sketching some rough thoughts.

Consider your particular decision theory as a black box function or set of rules F which take the description of a situation P and outputs yes or no and one of those answers wins, the other loses.

F(P)

You want a decision theory, some set of rules to follow F which wins in all situation.

But for all F it's possible to construct a situation P "The winning situation is !F(P)", feeding F into itself. (or a simplified equivalent)

No matter what set of rules you include in your decision theory it cannot win in all cases. Ever.

I use to do something similar. It didn't work out for me. Sensory overload, bipolarity, learning...it was all too much.

It went like this, according to my psychologist and became a cycle I couldn't escape from. I started towards fixing it up with these steps in-case anyone is brave enough to replicate my experiment.

Try my pin-wheel of emotions to familiarise yourself and others with your and their emotions!

I treat conversations like this as a communication problem, since the information should be communicable if it's based in Douglas Crockford’s mind. I try to find what the intuition is based on, which helps i) send me in the right direction and ii) avoid double-counting the evidence if I find it independently.

To me, the labels “skill” or “intuition” mean that something is not well understood enough to be communicated objectively. A total understanding would include the ability to describe it as one or more clear-cut techniques or algorithms.

...it will be illuminating to discuss briefly an aspect of the biology and chemistry of yesterday, namely vitalism. Vitalism is the notion that living matter contains a vital principle which is absent from non-living entities, so that living matter obeys different laws from those that rule non-living matter.

This is an old idea, and it is by no means ridiculous. This idea has led in chemistry to a distinction between organic and inorganic substances.

-- POST-HUMAN MATHEMATICS by David Ruelle

(strange that this very winding-road like insight follows from a comment almost at the same time as The Winding Path)

View more: Next