= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Rationality is Systematized Winning - 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 (252)
But if you were put into said hypothetical competition, and could somehow decide just before the contest began whether to be an Olympic athlete or an untrained fatass, which would you choose?
I think you're getting overly distracted by the details of the problem construction and missing the point.
You're assuming that you can just choose how you go about making decisions every time you make a decision. If you're not granted that assumption, Furcas's analysis is spot on. Two-boxers succeed in other places and also on Newcomb; one-boxers fail in many situations that are similar to Newcomb but not as nice. So you need to decide what sort of decisions you'll make in general, and that will (arguably) determine how much money is in the boxes in this particular experiment.
Such as?
(Is this meant to refer to failures of evidential decision theory? There are other options.)