Yvain comments on You're in Newcomb's Box - LessWrong

40 Post author: HonoreDB 05 February 2011 08:46PM

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

Comments (172)

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

Comment author: TobyBartels 06 February 2011 03:21:57AM 1 point [-]

Whether my genes are passed on after me is linked to whether I reproduce, much as (in the relevant versions of Newcomb) the money in Box B is linked to whether I take Box A. But whether my genes were passed on before me is not linked to whether I reproduced, much as (in the smoking-lesion problem) my cancer status is not linked to whether I smoke.

Comment author: Yvain 06 February 2011 01:58:22PM 1 point [-]

Think of this at the genetic level, not the personal level. Let's say you have a gene G, which affects decision-making about reproduction. If G causes people to decide not to reproduce, then your ancestors possessing gene G will have not reproduced and you won't exist. If G makes you decide to reproduce, then your ancestors will have reproduced and you will exist. If we interpret decisions as altering the output of the algorithm that produced them, then deciding not to reproduce can alter the effects of gene G and therefore affect your ancestors with the gene.

Comment author: TobyBartels 07 February 2011 01:06:17AM 2 points [-]

If G causes people to decide not to reproduce, then your ancestors possessing gene G will have not reproduced and you won't exist.

This is false.

Even though G causes people to decide not to reproduce, my ancestors possessing gene G still reproduced, and I do exist.