Tyrrell_McAllister comments on To signal effectively, use a non-human, non-stoppable enforcer - LessWrong

31 Post author: Clippy 22 May 2010 10:03PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (164)
Tags: signaling game_theory decision_theory

Comments (164)

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

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 24 May 2010 12:32:34AM *  0 points [-]

Meaning my reasoning skills would be advanced by reading something? So I made an error? Yes, I did. That's the point.

FWIW, I understood that you were presenting an argument to criticize its conclusion. I still think that you haven't read Pearl (at least not carefully) because, among other things, your putative causal diagram has arrows pointing to exogenous variables.

Comment author: Clippy 24 May 2010 12:43:51AM 1 point [-]

I still think that you haven't read Pearl (at least not carefully) because, among other things, your putative causal diagram has arrows pointing to exogenous variables.

I puted no such diagram; rather, you puted a logical statement that you claimed represented the decision theory I was referring to. See also my reply here.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 24 May 2010 12:51:48AM 0 points [-]

I puted no such diagram

I thought you had because you said

If you treat P <=> (Q <=> P) as an acausal statement, you can show its equivalence to Q, but it is not the same causal network.

I took this to mean that you were treating P <=> (Q <=> P) and Q as causal networks, but distinct ones.

You also said

I can set P.

I took this to mean that P was an exogenous variable in a causal network.

I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit