crazy88 comments on Decision theory and "winning" - Less Wrong

4 Post author: lukeprog 16 October 2012 12:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (33)
Tags: decision_theory

Comments (33)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 16 October 2012 12:59:33AM 1 point [-]

Having good genes doesn’t make the non-chewer more rational but simply more lucky. The proponent of CDT simply extends this response to Newcomb’s problem.

Do they think that two-boxing is genetic and cannot be unlearned?

On a different note, I don't understand how one self-consistently discuss Newcomb's without going into the issues of free will, determinism and inside vs outside view.

Comment author: crazy88 16 October 2012 10:54:45PM 0 points [-]

Edited to make clearer. Now says:

In this case, the above response seems particularly appropriate. The chewers are less healthy not because of their decision but rather because they’re more likely to have an undesirable gene. Having good genes doesn’t make the non-chewer more rational but simply more lucky. The proponent of CDT simply makes a similar response to Newcomb’s problem: one-boxers aren’t richer because of their decision but rather because of the type of agent that they were when the boxes were filled.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit