You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Khoth comments on Two-boxing, smoking and chewing gum in Medical Newcomb problems - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: Caspar42 29 June 2015 10:35AM

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

Comments (93)

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

Comment author: Khoth 29 June 2015 07:10:59PM 0 points [-]

I wasn't assuming that I knew beforehand.

It's just that, if I have the one-boxing gene, it will compel me (in some manner not stated in the problem) to use a decision algorithm which will cause me to one-box, and similarly for the two-box gene.

Comment author: Caspar42 29 June 2015 07:44:03PM 2 points [-]

Ah, okay. Well, the idea of my scenario is that you have no idea how all of this works. So, for example, the two-boxing gene could make you be 100% sure that you have or don't have the gene, so that two-boxing seems like the better decision. So, until you actually make a decision, you have no idea which gene you have. (Preliminary decisions, as in Eells tickle defense paper, are also irrelevant.) So, you have to make some kind of decision. The moment you one-box you can be pretty sure that you don't have the two-boxing gene since it did not manage to trick into two-boxing, which it usually does. So, why not just one-box and take the money? :-)

Comment author: Khoth 29 June 2015 08:00:42PM *  0 points [-]

My problem with all this is, if hypothetical-me's decisionmaking process is made by genetics, why are you asking real-me what the decisionmaking process should be?

Real-me can come up with whatever logic and arguments, but hypothetical-me will ignore all that and choose by some other method.

(Traditional Newcomb is different, because in that case hypothetical-me can use the same decisionmaking process as real-me)

Comment author: Caspar42 29 June 2015 08:09:44PM 3 points [-]

So, what if one day you learned that hypothetical-you is the actual-you, that is, what if Omega actually came up to you right now and told you about the study etc. and put you into the "genetic Newcomb problem"?

Comment author: Khoth 29 June 2015 10:01:41PM 0 points [-]

Well, I can say that I'd two-box.

Does that mean I have the two-boxing gene?

Comment author: Unknowns 30 June 2015 03:53:03AM *  1 point [-]

Hypothetical-me can use the same decisionmaking process as real-me also in genetic Newcomb, just as in the original. This simply means that the real you will stand for a hypothetical you which has the gene which makes you choose the thing that real you chooses, using the same decision process that the real you uses. Since you say you would two-box, that means the hypothetical you has the two-boxing gene.

I would one-box, and hypothetical me has the one-boxing gene.