Very valid and good point(added). I briefly touched on it before too, but mostly had individual practitioners in mind than organized hospitals with administration and support. (India is moving towards a lot more of the organized hospitals model, but IT is non-existent, administration is most seat-in-the-ass jobs)

Thanks that's clearer.. will update...

Unreliable memory.. but here's a less opinionated, and closer to original sounding one.. although the source is dodgy.

And she felt hungry. And that also made no sense. The stomach was a bag for digesting food. It wasn't supposed to issue commands. The Auditors could survive quite well by exchanging molecules with their surroundings and making use of any local source of energy. That was a fact.

Try telling that to the stomach. She could feel it. It was sitting there, grumbling. She was being harassed by her internal organs. Why the ... why the. . why had they copied internal organs? Yuerkkk.

Frome here.

I think Terry Pratchett makes this point well, in "The thief of time". Can't find the exact quote, but here goes my paraphrasing from memory

"Human beings make decisions by committee. The stomach has a mind of its, own and wants to put food in the mouth.

I disagree. I'm not sure it's provable(maybe in professional poker players??), but if you've played the bet a lot of times, you could have come up with cues* about whether your friend has got the same roll(or number on the die) as the last time or not.

• -- not sure how verbalizable or not it is .(which implies harder to teach to someone else).

OK, so "there could be cases where it is rational to update." How would you do so?

(I can't understand what an update could reasonably change. You aren't going to make the probability of any particular side more than 1/6, so what is the new probability?)

I don't know either. I can make up a scenario, based on a series of die throws, history of win-losses and guesses based on that, but that would simply be conjecture, and still may not produce a reasonable process. However, this discussion reminded me of a scene in HPMOR. (The scene where HP's critic part judges that Miss Camblebunker was not a Doctor, but an actor. (After Bellatrix is broken out of prison.))

What does it mean to have uncertainty reduction taking place outside of the frame of reference of the person being asked for a decision?

You're assuming humans are rational(as in the AI definition of a rational agent). We're not. So this knowledge that other person knows something for sure, that we don't know about, colours/biases one's judgement.

I am not saying one should update their beliefs based on another person knowing or not knowing, but that we do anyway, as part of perception. I would argue, that we should be learning to notice the confusion between the rational side of us vs the perceptive side which notes (the other agent's) confidence/lack there of. I know it is a hand-wavy explanation, but my point stands nevertheless. I agree with the OP that one shouldn't update their beliefs on the basis of Naomi/camera having no certainty about the outcome(of coin toss). Simply say that if it is Naomi, there could be cases where it is rational to update, though hard to actually observe/be-aware of these updations and therefore, safer to not update.

Ah.... "genuine uncertainty" the term reminds me of "no true scotsman argument". My point being, there's an uncertainty reduction before and after the die was rolled, not to say this means, I should update my belief about the die's rolled/winning value.

Simply put my friend Naomi's beliefs have been updated and uncertainty in her mind has been eliminated. I think the author was trying to point out that most people conflate the two differences. It definitely is well worded for rhetoric, but not for pedagogy(in Feynman sense).