I always thought that the majority of exposition in your Newcomb example went towards, not “Rationalists should WIN”, but a weaker claim which seems to be a smaller inferential distance from most would-be rationalists:
Rationalists should not systematically lose; whatever systematically loses is not rationality.
(Of course, one needs the logical caveat that we’re not dealing with a pure irrationalist-rewarder; but such things don’t seem to exist in this universe at the moment.)
Nick, show me a dictionary with this in and we can talk. Otherwise, it seems as though you are redefining a perfectly common and ordinary english word to mean something esoteric and counter-intuitive.
Well, I don’t think I’d fare better by thinking less rationally; and if I really needed to find a way to win, rationality at least shouldn’t hurt me me in the process.
I was hoping to be pithy by neglecting a few implicit assumptions. For one, I mean that (in the absence of direct rewards for different cognitive processes) good rationalists shouldn’t systematically lose when they can see a strategy that systematically wins. Of course there are Kobayashi Maru scenarios where all the rationality in the world can’t win, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
I always thought that the majority of exposition in your Newcomb example went towards, not “Rationalists should WIN”, but a weaker claim which seems to be a smaller inferential distance from most would-be rationalists:
Rationalists should not systematically lose; whatever systematically loses is not rationality.
(Of course, one needs the logical caveat that we’re not dealing with a pure irrationalist-rewarder; but such things don’t seem to exist in this universe at the moment.)
Re: Rationalists should not systematically lose; whatever systematically loses is not rationality.
Even if you are playing go with a 9-stone handicap against a shodan?
“Lose” = “perform worse than another (usable) strategy, all preferences considered”.
Nick, show me a dictionary with this in and we can talk. Otherwise, it seems as though you are redefining a perfectly common and ordinary english word to mean something esoteric and counter-intuitive.
Well, I don’t think I’d fare better by thinking less rationally; and if I really needed to find a way to win, rationality at least shouldn’t hurt me me in the process.
I was hoping to be pithy by neglecting a few implicit assumptions. For one, I mean that (in the absence of direct rewards for different cognitive processes) good rationalists shouldn’t systematically lose when they can see a strategy that systematically wins. Of course there are Kobayashi Maru scenarios where all the rationality in the world can’t win, but that’s not what we’re talking about.