nshepperd comments on You're in Newcomb's Box - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (172)
Thanks, this is a highly thought-provoking (and headache-inducing :p) post.
The "obvious" objection to the (evolutionary) argument here is that, were I to in fact make some choices that increase my inclusive genetic fitness in response to this argument, that would bear almost no connection to the genetic fitness of my ancestors, who had never been exposed to the argument, and were presumably causal decision theorists too. (If what I have just said is true, by the way, that would make the argument also a basilisk, in that by disseminating it you would [eventually] force our descendents to consider it in order to increase their measure, decreasing morality. This is unequivocally a bad thing, unless having lots of children [=increasing the number of sentient beings in existence, ala. total utilitarianism] is good directly.)
There are flavors of the smoking lesion in here too, I think. Generally, if the vector involved in the decision is genetic predisposition, having any mathematical decision theory whatsoever, and sticking to it (overriding my instincts) ought to screen off the influence of my genes. If I made this choice because UDT demands it of me, I didn't do it because of my genetic predisposition, unless I have a predisposition to adopt UDT (which could I suppose be called "intelligence").
Other issues, which I am confused about: