framsey comments on Why one-box? - Less Wrong

7 Post author: PhilosophyStudent 30 June 2013 02:38AM

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

Comments (95)

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

Comment author: framsey 01 July 2013 04:25:02PM *  1 point [-]

Two-boxers think that decisions are things that can just fall out of the sky uncaused.

But don't LW one-boxers think that decision ALGORITHMS are things that can just fall out of the sky uncaused?

As an empirical matter, I don't think humans are psychologically capable of time-consistent decisions in all cases. For instance, TDT implies that one should one-box even in a version of Newcomb's in which one can SEE the content of the boxes. But would a human being really leave the other box behind, if the contents of the boxes were things they REALLY valued (like the lives of close friends), and they could actually see their contents? I think that would be hard for a human to do, even if ex ante they might wish to reprogram themselves to do so.

Comment author: notsonewuser 05 July 2013 12:18:00PM 1 point [-]

For instance, TDT implies that one should one-box even in a version of Newcomb's in which one can SEE the content of the boxes. But would a human being really leave the other box behind, if the contents of the boxes were things they REALLY valued (like the lives of close friends), and they could actually see their contents?

Probably not, and thus s/he would probably never see the second box as anything but empty. His/her loss.

Comment author: ChristianKl 02 July 2013 12:07:16PM 0 points [-]

I think that would be hard for a human to do, even if ex ante they might wish to reprogram themselves to do so.

I think it's hard because most human's don't live their lives according to principles. They care more about the lives of close friends than they care about their principles.

In the end reprograming yourself in that way is about being a good stoic.