I confess, when I first wrote out the CDT calculations for Newcombe's Paradox, I assumed that the prediction 'caused' the choice, and got one-boxing as a result.

Then I got confused, because I had heard by then that CDT suggests two-boxing.

Now I'm working on getting a copy of Causality so I can figure out if the network formalism still supports the prediction not being causally binding on the outcome.

I'm a first-year grad student, and I'd be more than happy to take down any ID'er that crosses my path while dressed in jeans.

Jeans are comfy.

EDIT: Oh. I don't have a biology degree. Nevermind then.

Yeah, um, can you guys wait five years?

Omega really needs to stop killing copies of me.

It's just not right.

Both are true.

It's okay.

What do you disagree with Scott over? I don't regularly read Shtetl-Optimized, and the only thing I associate with him is a deep belief that P != NP.

I don't really know much about his FAI/AGI leanings. I guess I'll go read his blog a bit.

I agree. I stopped watching about five minutes into it when it became clear that EY and Scott were just going to spend a lot of time going back-and-forth.

Nothing game-changing indeed. Debate someone who substantially disagrees with you, EY.

My bad; I misread you.

Psychohistorian and I seem to be in agreement, actually.

There are three points, marked with bullet points.

1) "Moral approval" is magical. 2) Reducing "This is good" to "I like this" misrepresents the way people actually speak. 3) Emotivism doesn't account for the use of sentences in a context -- which is the whole of actual ethical speech.

Emotivism is very different from projectivism. One is a theory of ethical language, and one is a theory of mind.

EDIT: Perhaps this wasn't so clear -- one consequence of projectivism is a theory of ethical language as well; see Psychohistorian below. My point was that it's a category error to consider them as indistinguishable, because projectivism proper has consequences in several other fields of philosophy, whereas emotivism proper is mostly about ethical language and doesn't say anything wrt how we think about things other than moral approval.