= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (610)
That comment leaves me wondering what "pure Bayesianism" is.
I don't think Bayesianism is a recipe for action in the first place - so how can "pure Bayesianism" be telling agents how they should be spending their time?
By "pure Bayesianism", I meant the attitude expressed in Chapter 13 of Jaynes, near the end in the section entitled "Comments" and particularly the subsection at the very end entitled "Another dimension?". A pure "Jaynes Bayesian" seeks the truth, not because it is useful, but rather because it is truth.
By contrast, we might consider a "de Finetti Bayesian" who seeks the truth so as not to lose bets to Dutch bookies, or a "Wald Bayesian" who seeks truth to avoid loss of utility. The Wald Bayesian clearly is looking for a recipe for action, and the de Finetti Bayesian seeks at least a recipe for gambling.
A truth seeker! Truth seeking is certainly pretty bizarre and unbiological. Agents can normally be expected to concentrate on making babies - not on seeking holy grails.
Hi! As brief feedback, I was trying to find out what "pure Bayesianism" was being used to mean - so this didn't help too much.